AMENDING REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 2 OF 1973

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP75B00380R000500340004-0
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 30
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: December 14, 2001
• Sequence Number: 4
• Publication Date: June 14, 1973
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP75 3 0,050,
AMENDING REORGANIZA 0
PLAN NO. 2 OF 1973
HEARING
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
H.R. 8245
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
97-244 WASHINGTON : 1973
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500340004-0
 Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500340004-0
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
WHET HOLIFIELD, California, Chairman
JACK BROOKS, Texas
L. H. FOUNTAIN, North Carolina.
ROBERT E. JONES, Alabama
JOHN E. MOSS, California
I)ANTE B. FASCELL. Florida
HENRY S. REUSS. Wisconsin
TORBERT H.MA CDO NALD, Massachusetts
WILLIAM S. MOORHEAD, Pennsylvania
WM. J. RAND ALL, Missouri
BENJAMIN S. ROSENTHAL, New York
JIM WRIGHT, Texas
FERNAND J. ST GERMAIN, Rhode Island
JOHN C. CULVER, Iowa
I'LOYD V. HICKS, Washington
I)ON FUQUA, Florida
JOHN CONYERS, in., Michigan
BILL ALEXANDER, Arkansas
BELLA S. AB21UG, New York
HAROLD D. DONOHUE, Massachusetts
JAMES V. STANTON, Ohio
LEO J. RYAN. California
FRANK HORTON, New York
JOHN N. ERLENBORN, Illinois
JOHN W. WYDLER, New York
CLARENCE J. BROWN, Ohio
GUY VANDER JAGT, Michigan
GILBERT GUDE, Maryland
PAUL N. McCLOSKEY, JR., California
JOHN H. BUCHANAN, JR., Alabama
SAM STEIGER, Arizona
G.A.RRY BROWN, Michigan
CHARLES THONE, Nebraska
RICHARD W. MALLARY, Vermont
STANFORD E. PARRIS, Virginia
RALPH S. REGULA, Ohio
ANDREW J. HINSHAW, California
ALAN STEELMAN, Texas
JOEL PRITCHARD, Washington
ROBERT P. HANRAHAN, Illinois
HERBERT ROBACK, , taff Director
ELMER W. HESDERSON, General Counsel
liiras Q. Rompipy, Counsel-Administrator
DOUGLAS G. DAIILIN, Flssociate Counsel
J. P. CARLSON, Minority Counsel
LEGISLATION AND MILITARY OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE
OHFYP HOLIFIELD, California, Chairman
BENJAMIN S. ROSENTHAL, New York
JIM WRIGHT Texas
FERNAND J. ST GERMAIN, Rhode Island
DON FUQUA, Florida
WILLIAM S. MOOIIHEAD, Pennsylvania
ROBERT E. JONES, Alabama
FT:ANK HORTON, New York
JOHN N. ERLENBORN, Illinois
JOHN W. WYDLER, New York
CLARENCE J. BROWN, Ohio
RICHARD W. MALLARY, Vermont
HERBERT ROBACK, Staff Director
CIBARLES GOODW::N, Counsel
PAUL RiDGELY, Investigator
CATHERINE KOEBERLEIN, Research Analyst
MARY ETTA HA GA, Clerk
SPECIAL INVESTIGATIVE STAFF
WARREN BUIILSR, Minority Staff Member
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500340004-0
 Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500340004-0
CONTENTS
Hearing held on June 14, 1973_________________________________________
1
Text of II.R.8245-----------------------------------------------------
2
Statement of-
Ash, Roy L., Director, Office of Management and Budget, accompanied
by Fred Malek, Deputy Director__________________________________
4
Lynch, James H., legislative representative, AFGE, accompanied by
Gauzy Lansin, staff counsel______________________________________
14
Murphy, John J., president, National Customs Service Association,
accompanied by Russell Chambers________________________________
18
Letters, statements, etc. submitted for the record by-
Holifleld, Hon. Chet, a Representative in Congress from the State of
California and chairman, Legislation and Military Operations Sub-
committee :
Customs Bureau personnel requests, 1964-73, table-------------
8
Immigration and Naturalization Service personnel requests,
1964-73, table---------------------------------------------
7
Letter, dated June 6, 1973, from Frederic V. Malek, Deputy Di-
rector, OMB, re future plans for the Immigration and Natural-
ization Service--------------------------------------------
9-10
Letter, dated June 12, 1973, from Attorney General Elliot L.
Richardson, re support of H.R. 8245------------------------
6
Letter, dated June 13, 1973, from James B. Clawson, Acting Assist-
ant Secretary for Enforcement, Tariff and Trade Affairs, and
Operations, re support of H.R. 8245__________________________
Lynch
James H
le
islati
t
ti
.6
,
.,
g
ve represen
a
ve, AFGE :
Agreement re Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1973 (May 29, 1973)__ 15-16
Upgrading the country's alien control capability________________ 17
Murphy, John J., president, National Customs Service Association :
Statement of the National Customs Service Association ----------- 18-23
APPENDIX
Other correspondence relative to the hearing____________________________ 27
(III)
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500340004-0
 Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500340004-0
AMENDING REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 2
OF 1973
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
LEGISLATION AND MILITARY OPERATIONS SUBCOIVIMPrrEE
OF TIIE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in room
2203, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Chet IIolifield (chairman
of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present : Representatives Chet IIolifield, Fernand J. St Germain,
Don Fuqua, Frank IIorton, John W. Wydler, Clarence J. Brown,
and Richard W. Mallary.
Also present : Herbert Roback, staff director; Paul Ridgely, investi-
gator, and from the full committee staff, Elmer Henderson, general
counsel; Douglas Dahlin, associate counsel; and Warren Buller,
minority staff member.
Chairman HOIIFIELD. The committee will be in order.
The hearing today is concerned with II.R. 8245, a bill to amend
Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1973. Specifically, the bill would repeal
section 2 and subsection 6(b) of the plan, which pertains to transfers
of certain functions to the Secretary of the Treasury from the Attor-
ney General or the Department of Justice.
[The bill referred to above follows:]
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500340004-0
 Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500340004-0
2
.93i) 'CONGRESS 8245
1sT E+ESSION
H? .Re
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ..
MAY ;0,1973
'NJ 1'. I-IoraFirr.u (for himself, Mr. IIoT,cor, and Mr. FUQUA) introduced the fol-
lowing bill; which was referred to the Committee oil Government Opera-
tions
A BILL
To aineumi. Reorganizatioii Plan Numbered 2 of 1973.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Repre'lenta-
2 wive of the United States of America in Congress a sembled,
That Eeorgrmization Plan Numbered 2 of 197 is amended
4 1) hv---
(1) repealing section 2;
(2) repealing section 6(b) and redesignating see-
tion to (a.) as seotion 6; and
(:3) striking "and to the Secretary.of the Treasury",
and "and to the Department of the Treasury, respec-
tively," from section 8.
Src: 2. The amendments made by this Act shall be ef-
fective on the date of the enactment of this Act or as of
July 1, 1973, whichever is earlier.
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500340004-0
 Approved For Release 2002/01/023 CIA-RDP75B00380R000500340004-0
Chairman HoLIFiELD. These particular provisions would have in-
volved, among other things, the transfer of approximately 900 per-
sons from the Immigration and Naturalization Service in the Justice
Department to the Customs Bureau in the Treasury Department in
the interest of single-agency management of inspection activities at
U.S. ports of entry.
In the course of our hearings on Reorganization Plan No. 2 and
subsequently, it became evident that this part of the reorganization
plan was very controversial. It was opposed by union representatives
of the employees involved. Many of us in Congress, I believe, shared
their concern that the transfer of so large a complement of persons
from the Service at this time would have a detrimental effect on
morale and ability to perform.
The Immigration and Naturalization Service is confronted with a
serious problem of illegal entry of aliens into the United States. There
are said to be more than a million illegal aliens in the country now.
About a half-million a year-judging by 1972 figures-being appre-
hended and returned, but the Service obviously is undermanned for
this difficult job.
As a result of discussions between administration and union repre-
sentatives, certain understandings were reached and summarized in
written form. The administration agreed to support the repeal of
section 2 and subsection 6(b) of the plan, and to make a conscientious
effort to expand the number of, and upgrade, positions in the Immi-
gration and Naturalization Service. The union then expressed its
willingness to withdraw opposition to the plan.
A week ago today-Thursday, June 7-a resolution to disapprove
Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1973 was defeated in the House by a vote
of 130 yeas to 281 nays. A resolution to disapprove being voted down,
the plan is allowed to become law. This vote came after it was ex-
plained in debate, and after assurances were given, that prompt action
would be taken to repeal section 2 and subsection 6(b) of the plan. We
propose, so far as responsibilities of the Chair and this committee are
concerned, to honor the commitment. We hope to conclude our hearing
today, to report the bill out of the subcommittee shortly thereafter, and
to consider the bill at the full committee meeting next Thursday,
June 21, 1973.
Mr. Roy L. Ash, Director of the Office of Management and Budget,
is our chief witness. He will explain why the administration supports
this bill and what lie proposes to do, from a budgetary standpoint, in
.behalf of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. We will also
receive, for the record, statements from the Attorney General and the
Secretary of the Treasury, or their designees, endorsing the legislation.
Finally, we have invited representatives of the union organizations
involved, the American Federation of Government Employees and its
parent organization, the AFL-CIO, to appear or to submit a statement
for the record.
At this time, we will hear from Director Ash.
Mr. Ash.
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000500340004-0
 Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500340004-0
4
STATEMENT OF ROY L. ASH, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT
AND BUDGET; ACCOMPA:HIED By FRED MALEK, DEPUTY DI-
RECTOR
AIr?. Assn. Thank you, Air. Chairman, and members of the committee.
I am pleased to be able to appear before you today in support of
H.R. 8245 which would repeal section 2 of Reorganization Plan No.
2 of 1973.
I was gratified to see the strong support that reorganization plan
received in the House on June T. '['he consolidation of drug law en-
forcement, activities within the new Drug Enforcement Administra-
tion should make possible a major new offensive in the President's
global war against drug abuse.
Reorganization Plan No. 2 was proposed with the goal of improving
all aspects of the :Federal. Government's drug enforcement effort. The
plan. therefore, proposed not only consolidation of drug investigative
and intelligence efforts within a new agency at the Department of
Justice, but also addressed the issue of inspection at our ports of entry.
Section 2 of the plan provided for reducing the present fragmentation
of organizLtional responsibility for port-of-entry inspections by plac-
ing the task of inspecting both goods and people under a single man-
ager, the Bureau of Customs. Approximately 900 immigration inspec-
tors were to have been transferred from the Immigration and Natural-
ization Service to the Bureau of Customs under this section of the plan.
Because all heroin and cocaine consumed in the United States must
be smuggled into the country from aboard, the careful inspection of
all person; and goods entering the United States is vitally important
to improved drug law enforcement.
However, it, became clear durinrr the course of your committee's
consideration of the plan that the transfers envisioned by section 2
might have other consequences, unrelated to the control of drugs,
which many Alembers feared might be undesirable. In particular, con-
cern was voiced that implementation of this portion of the plan might
adversely affect the Nation's illegal alien control capability.
This administration is fully committed to the objective of enhanc-
ing the Federal Government's ability to deal effectively with the
very serious illegal alien problem. As I indicated May 17, 197 , by
letter to Chairman Holifield, we understand the need to increase the
effort and resources devoted to illicit alien control and, in particular,
to consider adding manpower to the internal investigative clew-eats
of INS and the border patrol. We intend to work closely with Con-
gress in exploring these alternatives, as well as other ways in which
Federal enforcement agencies can deal more effectively with the il-
legal alien control problem which deprives American workers of jobs
and adds an unwanted additional levy onto already overburdened
Federal, State, and local taxpayers.
While we have ,yet, to see convincing evidence that the establishment
of a single manager at points of entry is undesirable either from the
standpoint of drug enforcement or better alien control, we de ac-
knowledge that the illegal alien control issue is complex and deserves
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500340004-0
 Approved For Release 2002/01/0?: CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500340004-0
further detailed study by both Congress and the executive branch.
We also sense that a majority of this committee would find it prefer-
able to maintain the status quo with respect to any organizational
transfers of immigration inspectors pending completion of this fur-
ther detailed review.
We reached these conclusions as a result of lengthy consultations
with Chairman Holifield and Representative Horton, with members
of this committee's staff, and with representatives of outside groups
interested in illegal alien control. At the time when these delibera-
tions took place, the reorganization plan could not be amended or
resubmitted. Because of our conviction that the consolidation of Fed-
eral drug enforcement agencies-the main purpose of the plan-
should take place as scheduled on July 1, 1973, we very much wanted
to insure that nothing stand in the way of implementing section I
of the plan which established the much needed Drug Enforcement
Administration.
We, therefore, recommended to the Congress that the reorganiza-
tion plan be allowed to go into effect with the understanding that
repeal of section 2 would be supported by the administration. This
approach received the support in advance of affected committee leader-
ship in both the Senate and the House and was extensively discussed
on the House floor.
Given the chronology of events, the complexity of the alien issue,
and the fact that the House voted its approval of reorganization plan
only after being assured during debate that the transfers envisioned
by section 2 of the plan would not take place pending further review of
the illegal alien problem, I ask the committee's support for H.R. 8245
which would repeal section 2 of Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1973.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HoLIFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Ash.
Mr. Horton.
Mr. HORTON. Mr Chairman, I don't have any specific questions.
I do want to express appreciation to Mr. Ash and to Mr. Malek
for their work on this problem during the course of our consideration
of Reorganization Plan No. 2. I feel that had this action not been
taken, Reorganization Plan No. 2 would not have been put into effect.
I think that the problem of illegal aliens was one that the Members
of the House were very much concerned about, and I think the action
taken by Mr. Malek in reaching agreement with the representative of
the employees groups was very hefpful to us. I commend Mr. Ash and
Mr. Malek for coming here today to support the repeal of section 2,
which I think is important insofar as the effectiveness of Reorganiza-
tion Plan No. 2 is concerned.
Chairman HOLIFIELD. At this point I would like to place in the record
a letter from the Attorney General, that is Elliot Richardson, dated
June 12, which is a letter in support of the passage of the bill that
is before us.
[The letter referred to follows:]
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500340004-0
 Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CAA-RDP75B0038OR000500340004-0
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Washington, D.C., dune 12, 1973.
Chairman, House Committee on Government Operations, House of Repres,snta-
tives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: During the course of the Congressional review of
Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1973, serious questions were raised as to the
wisdom of 'Section 2 of that proposal. Further review of the provisions of this
section will be necessary if we are to be assured the course proposed is the one
of greatest wisdom.
The bill which you are considering, H.R. 8245, will repeal Section 2 of the
Reorganizat-.on Plan, and provide the opportunity for re-examination o' its
provisions.
I am pleased to support its passage and trust that it will receive expeditious
action by your Committee and the House oi'. Representatives.
With kindest regards,
Sincerely,
ELLIOT L. RICHARDSON,
Attorney General.
Chairman H(1r,TFTEr,D. I also have a letter under date of June 13,
from the Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement in Tariff and
Trade Affairs and Operations of the Department of Treasury, Mr.
James B. Clawson. which is also in support of the bill that lies he-'"ore
its. H.R. 8245.
[The letter referred to follows:]
Tn E DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASITRY.
Washington, D.C., dune 13, 1973.
Chairman, Committee on Government Onerations, House of RepresentaVves,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : You have. asked for our views, on the repeal Of Section 2
of the Presic'ent's Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1973. This portion of the Plan
would have merged the inspectional functions and related personnel of INS
and Customs under the single agency management of Treasury Department's
Bureau of Customs. This concept has been endorsed in a number of studies
over a period of years, the latest being a May 30, 1973, GAO Report and taere
are undoubtedly a number of advantages to be gained from these concepts.
However. inasmuch as the Administration has been particularly concerned
with achieving the early implementation of the Drug Enforcement Agency,
questions arising about certain aspects of Section 2 make it desirable to thor-
oughly review the provisions of this section,
The Depari:ment of the Treasury supports the passage of H.R. 8245 and urges
quick action by your Committee and the House of Representatives.
With every good wish,
Sincerely,
JAMES R. CLAWSON,
ACthig Assistant Secretary for Enforcement,
Tariff and Trade Affairs, and Operations.
Chairman Hor,rrrELD. Arr. Mallarv.
lfr. MALIARY. I have no specific questions, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HOLIFTFLD. Mr. Ash, I want to call to your attention a
table of figures which I will furnish you a copy of, which is Immi-
aration and Naturalization Service Personnel Requests from. 1964- to
1973. I will place this in the record at this point for further informa-
tion.
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500340004-0
 Approved For Release 2002/01/02: CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500340004-0
[The chart referred to follows:]
Justice Department Final congressional
Fiscal year INS asked for approved 0MB approved action
1964_ _____________ 28 more positions-122 fewer positions____ 122 fewer positions---_ 140 fewer positions.
1965______________ 22 more positions-No new positions______ No new positions------ No new positions.
1966_ _____________ 12 fewer positions----- 12 fewer positions----- 12 fewer positions----- 12 fewer positions.
1967______________ 27 more positions----- 4 more positions ------ 4 more positions------ 4 more positions.
1968_ _____________ 151 more positions_ 151 more positions---- 151 more positions---- 148 more positions.
1969_ _____________ 107 more positions ---- 107 more positions_ ___ 67 more positions----- 37 more positions.
1970______________ 580 more positions____ 293 more positions____ 197 more positions____ 197 more positions.
1971_ ____________ 969 more positions_423 more positions- ..... 310 more positions____ 310 more positions.
1972______________ 960 more positions_763 more positions_452 more positions____ 452 more positions.
1973-------------- 1,065 more positions___ 456 more positions_ No new positions______ No new positions.
10 yr record (net)___ 3,897 requested___________________________________________________ 966 granted.
Between 1964 and 1973 there was a net increase of 996 positions directly connected with detecting, apprehending and
expelling illegal aliens.
Between 1964 and 1973, appropriations for the Immigration and Naturalization Service increased from $69,011,000 to
$135,944,000. For determining the effective budgetary increase for enforcement purposes, allowances must be made for
the effects of inflation during this period, including $40,334,000 in classified and cost of living pay raises. It is estimated
that, in light of the inflationary factor, the effective budget increase for INS since 1964 is about $20,000,000.
I n fiscal 1964, 86,597 illegal aliens were found i n the United States. I n fiscal 1972, 505,949 were found. In his testimony
before the Legal and Monetary Affairs Subcommittee on Mar. 27, 1973, INS Commissioner Farrell (now retired) told the
subcommittee that, "We feel that we can actually throw a rack up in the air in a largo city such as Los Angeles and probably
hit an alien who is in the United States illegally." (Galley p. 14).
1964--86,597 aliens apprehended; 1972-505,949 aliens apprehended.
Chairman II01.1FIELD. It has several columns of information. The
first column consists of requests of the Immigration and Naturaliza-
tion Service for more positions. The second one has Justice Depart-
ment approval of positions, either more or less than requested. The
next column has OMB action, and the fourth column has final con-
gressional action on the request.
Roughly, the chart shows that in these 10 years, a total of 3,897
more positions were requested, and a net of 996 were granted. And
for comparison, in fiscal 1964, 86,597 illegal aliens were found in the
United States ; in fiscal 1972, 505,949 were found.
In his testimony before the Legal and Monetary Affairs Subcom-
mittee on March 27, 1973, Immigration and Naturalization Service
Commissioner Farrell, now retired, told the subcommittee that, "We
feel. that we can actually throw a rock up in the air in a large city
such as Los Angeles and probably hit an alien who is in the United
States illegally."
We also have a corresponding table from the Customs Bureau on
personnel requests, and the appropriations that were granted in 1964
and 1973. The Customs Bureau actually received many more positions
than the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500340004-0
 Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CI,A-RDP75B00380R000500340004-0
[1'he chart referred to follows:]
i,ustom; Bureau Final congressional
Fiscal year asked for Treasury approved 0MB approved action
1964----------- . ___ 543 more positions---- 380 mare positions---- 417 more positions---- 142 more posit ons.
1965____________ ___ 739 mote positions---- 739 more positions---- 497 more positions---- 274 more posit ons.
1966____________ ___ 535 more positions-..-- 480 more positions---- 268 more positions---- 182 more positions.
1967--------------- 325 more positions---- 249 more positions---- 168 more positions____ 168 more positions.
37 fewer positions------ 37 fewer positions----- 37 fewer positions----- 37 fewer positrons.
1968--------------- 400 mote positions---- 283 more positions---- 217 more positions---- 267 more positions.
19691__. ______ "' 1918 more positions- .-- 425 more positions---- 392 mere positions---- 330 more positions.
302 fewer positions.--- 302 fewer positions--__ 302 fewer positions---- 302 fewer positions.
19708............. 1665 more positions____ 665 more positions---- 483 more positions____ 423 more positions.
1,332 more positions--- 1,332 more positions--- 915 more positions---- 915 mare positions.
1971_____________ 12,034 more positions--- 949 more posi.ions ---- 462 more positions---- 453 more positions.
60 more positions 60 more positions----- 60 more positions----- 60 more positions.
(supp.)-
19723 13,256 mire positions--- 1,551 more positions--- 932 more positions---- 932 more positions.
11,725 more positions--- 1,725 more positions--- 1,000 more positions--- 1,000 more positions.
19734____________ 6,356 more positions--- 2,711 more positions--- 311 more positions---- 288 more positions.
1973 5_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ 310 more positions- _ _ _ 350 more posilions_ _ _ _ 310 more positions-_ _ _ 310 more positi ms.
10?yearrecord (not 18,859_______________ 11,550_______________ 6,093_______________ 5,405.
figures).
I Congress app oved $300,000 more than 0MB requested.
1 Made necessary by Bow amendment requiring 10 percent personnel cost.
The 2d figure represents supplemental money for narcotics enforcement.
I Subsequent P residential Order to freeze employee limits resulted in 450 fewer employees.
5 Supplemental request for additional narcotics enforcement.
Note: Between 1964 and 1913 there was a net personnel increase of 5,405 in Customs Bureau. 1964 approp-.iations,
$72,485,000; 1973 appropriatios, $211,700,000.
Cbairmtln 1101 tFwi,n. This is particularly of interest to me as a
Californiyn, because I have been informed that the costs of illegal
aliens conlitrg into the United States, is a matter of great concern
to the local police and the local authorities, because when these peo-
ple are alipreliemled by local autho ities as being aliens, they are held
ill jail aud, in some instances they become, ill and they are put in the
comity lto~pitals. In all instances they have to be feed and they have
to b0 tr:rirsported back in big vans to the border and released on
illexican soil.
Now. it has been reliably reported it is costing Los Angeles County
around $100 million a year to take care of this influx of aliens in
ascertainable costs. This does not. of coarse indicate the jobs that
are being .taken away from resident American citizens, and it does
not indicate the crime that is committed, the costs of the crime, both
in hninau iujur;v and death, as well as in the dollar costs that are
involved. Many of these aliens enter at night between ports of e.atry,
and itian bring with them contraband material, including mari-
huana. and hard drugs of different. kimis, and this is one of the
reasons why they come across the border.
So we are very much concerned with this migration of aliens
illegally. We are heartily in favor of the concentration of these drug
enforcement agencies under one head to avoid the chaos and ccnfu-
sion which has existed in the past but we are particularly aware of
tiro fact that these are related problems, and we would hope that you
would recognize these problems and their interrelationship and that
there would be more attention giver to the Immigration and Natural-
ization Service personnel requests in the future than have been in
the past.
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500340004-0
 Approved For Release 2002/01/0: CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500340004-0
In the past, back in 1964 for instance, Justice Department, the INS,
asked for 28 positions, and they received from OMB 122 fewer posi-
tions. Then Congress compounded the error, in my opinion, by giving
them 140 fewer positions than they had originally.
The list is not a very happy list. It contains 2 years with fewer
positions, and in 1 year no new positions, and in 1 year only four
more positions were granted. Lately, more particularly in 1971 and
1972, there were additions of 210 and 452 positions, respectively, in
those years. But in 1973, there was a request for 1,065 more positions,
and no new positions were approved by the Office of Management
and Budget, arid, no new positions were given by Congress.
Now, I don't know whether these matters passed over your desk as
routine matters or over the desk of your subordinate, but I would re-
spectfully request that you take note of the seriousness of this problem
and do something constructive about it in the way of granting more
positions.
I believe it would be in the interest of the economy to do it. While it
might affect a few thousand dollars of the Federal budget, I think that
other parts of the Federal budget, the apprehension and exportation
and that sort of thing, as well as the local budgets that have to take
care of these people, would be decreased considerably, I think there
would be a net gain to the United States monetarily as well as from a
standpoint of the jobs that resident Americans would have and the,
income tax that they would pay and that sort of thing.
Mr. Asir. Mr. Chairman, you have certainly identified the perennial
problem that we have of balancing the size of Government and its
costs; moreover, the size of the job with the benefits and the savings
that could come from doing that job.
I do agree with you that at this time, as I said in my statement, that
together the Administration and the Congress should give very strong
consideration to effective use of the present Immigration and Naturali-
zation Service capabilities, and also consider the very serious possi-
bility that there may be a very supportable need for additional
personnel.
You can be assured that both Mr. Malek and myself will at this
go-around in the budget give personal consideration to the matter that
you have raised.
Chairman I TOr TFIELD. Thank you.
On June 6 we received a letter from Mr. Malek, and are you aware
of that letter?
[The letter referred to follows:]
E%ECUTIVE OFFICE OF TIIE PRESIDENT,
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
Washington, D.C., June 6, 1973.
IIon. CIIET FIOLIFIELD,
Chairman, house Government Operations Committee, House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR CIIAIRMAN I OLIFIELD : In response to your inquiry concerning future
plans for the Immigration and Naturalization Service, I can assure you that the
recent debates on Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1973 have convinced me that we
do face an illegal alien problem in the United States of considerable proportions.
While it is still very early in the planning cycle for the fiscal year 1975 budget,
OMB has already discussed this problem in detail with the Department of
Justice, including representatives of the Immigration and Naturalization Service,
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500340004-0
 Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP75BOO38OR000500340004-0
10
and has sought their advice on bow additional resources could best be utilized
in improving the country's illegal alien control capability.
Our tentative view is that holstering the criminal investigative arm of the
INS by something in excess of 50 percent would be the most efficient and effec-
tive way to utilize additional resources for illegal alien control. Such a strength-
ening of the investigative staff would also be accompanied by an appropriate
increase in deportation officers, travel funils to meet the cost of returning aliens
to the country of nationality if the alien was unable to pay, and suitable arrange-
ments with such country. Limited augmentation of other portions of INS would
also appear desirable.
Pending further reviews by ourselves and by the Congress, our present tbink-
ing is that an expansion of INS manpower by something between 500 and 600
slots would )e justified in the next budget to be submitted by the President to
the Congress.
We very much look forward to working with you and your committee in re-
viewing ways to deal with this problem more effectively.
Sincerely.
FxrDERIC V. MAr.ux,
Depaaty Director.
Mr. Asir. Yes, sir, I have it in front of me.
Chairman Hor,rFTELn. Does that., in substance, represent your feeling
on this niatter?
Mr. Asir This is the view that we have at this time, and I think we
will want. to work closelj' with you in developing further the point
that is made in this letter. Because it certainly is representative of, I
think, the thinking that we together ..Would share.
Chairmwi HOLIVIELD. You are aware of the fact that Mr. Randall's
subcommittee of this committee is making a very intensive study
right now of this matter of illegal aliens?
Mr. Asir. Yes, sir.
Chairman HOLIIIELD. And at the conclusion of his studies there is
no doubt that there will be a report on it which ne will try to make
a moderate and reasonably constructive type of report, and we will
refer that to you for your consideratiton at that time.
Mr. Asir. We would appreciate it.
Chairman HOLIPIEtn. Without objection, the two tables which are
mentioned, and the letter of Mr. Malek, of June 6, will be included in
the record and such other correspondence as may be pertinent to the
matter that we have at hand.
Mr. St Gormain, do you have any questions to ask of Mr. Ash?
Mr. ST UERATATN. I would like to throw in one question because of
being on the Randall subcommittee, and in connection with the pre-
vious hearing.
I. spent some time with the border patrol down on the Mexican
border, on my own. I am convinced of the need for additional person-
nel, but along with personnel, there is also a need for more technical,
advanced equipment.
Now, they have the sensors at the present time. The only reason
they have them is because they were developed for Vietnam and excess
and turned over to the border patrol. But, in addition to that one thing,
for example, they don't have helicopters.
Now, it is my understanding that. these have been approved in the
past, and yet, as time went by things just dropped out, and Immigra-
tion does not, in fact, have helicopters.
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP75BOO38OR000500340004-0
 Approved For Release 2002/01/01: CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500340004-0
Now, to meet the budget that of necessity must be met, it is all
right using the old Indian method where they drag a chain behind the
jeep and they create these patterns and they can see if anyone has
been across there; but, even with that, they need some good air trans-
portation, particularly helicopters.
I am hoping that if, being in the administration, feeling generous
toward Immigration and Naturalization, you will give serious thought
to allowing the sophisticated equipment they should be using. That
eventually might cut down on the personnel, if we had better
equipment.
That is all.
Chairman HOLIFIELD. I think that is a good suggestion. I suppose we
have a few helicopters left from Vietnam, that haven't been shot down,
and, if they are bringing them home, why, maybe we could consider
using some of them to patrol the border at night and day. Patrol could
be done very quickly in that way with big flood lights at night, and
with the sensors that are mentioned. It might be that we could appre-
hend a lot of these people that are slipping across the border at night.
These helicopters could be assigned to patrol as training exercises for
the servicemen pilots. They might as well be given something useful to
do for the Nation rather than to be sightseeing during the daytime,
looking at the girls on the beaches.
Mr. ST GERMAIN. I was very impressed with the time I spent with
the border patrol that the fact that such a few people can cover such
a large expanse of territory and do as good a job as they have done.
This is why I say you should see your way clear to give them the equip-
ment-their morale is high and they are very dedicated people and
they certainly should be encouraged by giving them the equipment to
better do the job.
Mr. Asti. I would certainly agree the problem with which they are
confronted is one which can make very effective use of some of the
new technologies that today exist, including helicopter patrol. It is
time to give special attention to the many technologies that fit this
problem.
Mr. ST GERMAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HoLIFIELD. Mr. Fuqua.
Mr. FUQUA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I have just a few questions.
Will DEA agents have supervisory functions over the present
customs agents?
Mr. Asir. No, sir, the DEA organization is independent of the
customs operation. The customs operation will still continue, of
course, at ports of entry inspecting the baggage. This is their job.
To the extent, though, that they discover any leads in drug smuggling,
at that point they will put into the hands of the DEA investigatory
people the information they have. It then can be pursued as an investi-
gation product of the DEA.
Mr. FUQUA. What about the supervisory personnel of the customs
service? Will they merge in with DEA?
Mr. Asti. You are talking about those customs people that are pres-
ently dealing with drugs?,
Mr. FUQUA. Those in supervisory capacities, they will continue in
the customs organization?
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500340004-0
 Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500340004-0
12
Mr. Asu. Those. working in drug matters will be sent to DEA, and
the others will continue in the customs organization as it presently
exists.
Mr. Ft QUA. Well, Will DEA be the parent organization, and Customs
will be one
Mr. Asir. No, sir, it won't be that. DEA will be alongside. of and
independent of Customs. The difference between--
Mr. FIT UA. There won't be overlapping jurisdiction?
Mr. Asir. There won't be overlapping jurisdiction or responsibility.
There will be required a close cooperation between the two in the
sense that the cus.oms people in many cases will be the first to have
knowledge of a possible drug smuggling activity because of their
responsibilities at the border. They in turn will put into the hands
of an investigative unit, DEA, the further pursuit of the investigatory
function.
Mr. FUQUA. Well, now, someone entering this country, the ;first
man will Le the Immigration and then the customs people?
Mr. Asx. That is right.
Mr. FUQUA. Will DEA agents be going through baggage?
Mr. Asir. No, sir, the DEA agents will be available at those ports
of entry. They are there so that any discovery of drugs at that time
can be turned over to them for further investigatory work. But they
evil I not be going through the baggage. The customs organization has
the exclusive responsibility for doing that.
Mr. FUQ17A. Then, if a Customs agent, as in the past, discovered nar-
cotics in a bag or baggage, would lie notify the DEA agent, or can he
make the arrest there himself ?
Mr. Asti. He. would notify the DEA agent on the spot, who would
then pick it-1 al) from there. If, on the other hand, it were not drugs,
but some other contraband, it remains within the Customs organization
1 o further pursue.
Mr. FUQUA. I think that is all I have.
Chairman HOLIFIELD. Thank you very much. Mr. Wydler?
All.. Wx1)LER. I have no questions.
Chairman Hor.ivrEn>. If there are no further questions, we will ex-
cuse 1\1 r. Ash at this time.
Mr. I)Ain rN. AI ay I ask a couple of questions?
Chairman.1OLI F[Er,n. Two questions.
Mr. DAiir,rN. In connection with Mr. St Germain's questions, Mr.
Ash, can you give us any feel for the precise effect on the border patrol
of all these changes?
Will there be any contemplated effect on the border patrol, as dis-
tinguished from the other agencies affected by the plan?
Mr. Asti. Maybe I should ask Mr. Malek to answer that to the best
of his judgment at this time. It is a judgmental question.
1/r. MALEK. There will be no immediate impact on the border patrol
by the reorganization plan or the legislation repealing section 12 of
the reorgarization plan, except that the responsibility for investiga-
tory pursuit in the drug area., since it would rest with DEA, would
hopefully lead to a. stronger kind of coordination between the border
patrol and the DEA agent.
Eventually, as we go through the study of the need to strengthen the
INS, and along with it, the border patrol, we would hope that the
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500340004-0
 Approved For Release 2002/01/0213CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500340004-0
increase in personnel that would be contemplated would go into the
investigative elements of the INS and the border patrol so that those
units could be further strengthened.
Mr. DAIILIN. So that you do contemplate that if the projected in-
crease is carried through in the Immigration activities that some of
those additional positions would be allocated to the border patrol?,
Mr. MALLK. Yes.
Mr. DAIHLIN. But you don't know how many at this time?
Mr. MAL1~,r(. It Would be hard to differentiate how many are going
into INS or directly to the border patrol.
Mr. DAJILIN. Do you contemplate a particular type of job in the
border patrol would be augmented? It won't be just across-the-board
increase, but particular kinds of investigatory positions, or what do
you have in mind?
Mr. MALLK. We think the positions that should be focused on and
should get the benefit of the increase are those directly related to the
illegal alien problems. Those that are either investigative in nature or
others in the border patrol that are nonadministrative. Personnel
actually on the line working on illegal alien problem.
Mr. WYDLER. Mr. Chairman, could I just say something for the
record.
Mr. Ash, Mr. Malek, there was considerable discussion about the
arrangement, meeting of the minds, that took place between the ad-
ministration and the unions. It was criticized to some extent on the
floor of the House as something that was in some people's point of
view very bad.
Personally, I want to express the view for the record that I think
it was very good. I want to commend the parties for coming to a com-
promise solution or arrangement. I think it was very much in the in-
terest of the reorganization plan and the country that it be done that
way. I would like the record to carry my strong approval for that kind
of activity on the part of the administration.
Mr. Asir. Thank you.
Chairman HoLJFIELD. Mr. Ash, during the course of these hearings,
information has been brought to us, not necessarily in public testi-
mony, some of it is based on newspaper articles, that there have been
cases of corruption in the service. We recognize that there is a tremen-
dous price on these drugs, that can be smuggled across the. border, and
there is always the temptation to try bribery. Of course, you are aware
of the smuggling of persons?,
Mr. Asir. As you have recognized in your comments, Mr. Chairman,
Chairman HOLIFZLLD. The Randall subcommittee has a whole series
of photographs where they are bringing in as much as 30 or 40 people,
bringing them in in one huge van, or hidden under agricultural com-
modities and things like that.
I wonder if it would be administratively possible for some type of
an ad hoc, roving, small group of people to investigate these alleged
corrupt situations, and act more or less as an inspector general's group,
to and thereby make people a little bit more alert to their responsi-
bilities and also a bit more fearful of violating the criminal statutes?
Mr. Asn. As you have recognized in your comments. Mr. Chairman,
in a field where some money is involved, as in dealing with drugs or
illegal aliens, the temptations are high. Therefore it does require a
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500340004-0
 Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500340004-0
14
close watch over those that are involved in these very kinds of activities
that we are talking about here today.
I believe there was a major internal investigative effort made of the
very kind that you mentioned just recently. It did come up with a
number of instances where corrective action, where important cor-
rect i ve action was required, and it was taken.
IBut, I agree with you that the degree of temptation is such that
there needs to be a continuing effort working with all of the people
in this field. An inspector general type operation is certainly one of
the very successful ways to do that.
('hai rman Hoi.in Sin. Mr. Da.hlin.
Mr. I)ATILIN. Mr. Ash, another point has been made in the state-
ment to be introduced in the record in a moment by the AFGE, which
has been very active in this whole affair. They make. the point that
they feel they have a commitment from OMB that it will withdraw
its previous objections to the reclassification by the Civil Service
Commission of customs inspectors' positions so as to establish them
,it the journeyman grade of GS--11 instead of the present GS-9. Could
You tell its l'or the record what understandings there are about jour-
neyman grades. as to customs, INS, and border patrol, and any other
agencies that are affected by this?
Mr. 1hxc.i;x We have agreed to ?estudy the initial proposition.
When advanced, it was turned down I believe, by the Civil Service
Commission. We have agreed to work: with the Civil Service Commis-
sion to restudy this proposal and con~.sider very seriously whether or
not that, earlier stand should be reverse A.
Mr. D:vrn;rx. That is the extent of the commitment, to restudy?
Does that apply to customs or all these agencies?
Mr. MAr.EK. 1 believe it applies to all the agencies.
Mr. I[onrroN. The point is, you don't have the authority to upgrade
them?
Mr. 1MAr,EK. No. Only the Civil Service has the authority.
Mr. IIoi TON. What you will do is try to cooperate to get them up-
graded and, to that extent, you will be of assistance; is that correct?
Mr. MALEK. Yes, sir.
Chairman HOLIIJELD. Was there any further comment?
I f not, we will excuse you gentlemen,.
Mr. Asir. Thank you.
Chairman Hor.InELn. Is there a representative here of the American
Federation of Government Employees?
Would you like to have your statement introduced in the record
at this point, or do you wish to read it?
STATEMENT OF JAMES H. LYNCH, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENT.
ATIVE, AFGE; ACCOMPANIED BY GANZY LANSIN, STAFF
COUNSEL
Mr. LYNc-i-r. Mr. Chairman, whatever your wishes would be.
Cha.irmarc HOLIFLELD. If you will highlight your statement, rat'ier
than read it, we will put it in the record.
Identify yourself, please.
Mr. LYNC;rr. I am James H. Lynch. legislative representative, Amer-
ican Federation of Government Employees, and I am accompanied
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500340004-0
 Approved For Release 2002/01/05 CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500340004-0
today by Ganzy Lansin, our staff counsel. I have a statement prepared
for our president, Mr. Clyde M. Webber, who had to go out of town.
Mr. DAHLIN. Before you start, is this a statement of AFGE only,
or do you have the endorsement of the *&FL-CIO, as in the case of
the previous appearance?
Mr. LYNCH. This is our own statement and, in the other hearings
and meetings we have had with the AFL-CIO, they have endorsed us,
and to my knowledge, I don't know whether they have seen this state-
ment or not.
Chairman HoLIFIELD. Will you please get a letter from them to us
so we will have it as a matter of record?
I have also talked with them, and I know they approve it, but we
would like to have it in the record as well as yours.
Mr. LYNCH. We spoke to Mr. Meikeljohn last night. It is my under-
standing a letter will be sent to your committee.
Chairman IIoLIFuiLD. And either join in your statement or just be
a general letter of approval.
Mr. LYNCH. On May 3, 1973, our organization had the privilege
of appearing before the House Government Operations Committee to
urge disapproval of Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1973, designed by
the administration to wage "all-out global war on the drug menace."
At that time, we presented the particulars of our objection to that
plan, stressing our opposition especially to section 2, which would
have transferred large numbers of Immigration and Naturalization
Service inspectors to the customs service.
Since our statement before your committee, the validity of our
reservations was recognized by the administration itself. During a
series of conferences with representatives of the AFL-CIO and our
union, commencing on May 17 and concluding on May 29, 1973, the
administration reached an agreement with us.
I will submit this for the record and go on with our statement from
there.
[The material referred to follows:]
AGREEMENT RE REORGANIZATION PLAN No. 2 or 1973
May 29, 1973.
The Administration Agrees :
I. To make Section 2 of the plan inoperative.
A. We will have introduced and will work with the AFL-CIO to secure passage
of a separate bill prospectively repealing Section 2.
B. If this approach does not yield results by July 1, 1973, we will postpone im-
plementation of the transfers mandated by the plan by having Customs contract
immigration primary inspection to INS until such time as Section 2 is repealed
by statute.
II. To avoid public discussion of "featherbedding" or labor being "against bet-
ter drug enforcement" in conjunction with organized labor's position on Reorgani-
zation Plan No. 2 of 1973.
III. To honor OMB Director Ash's commitment of May 17, 1973, to Chairman
Holifield with respect to strengthening the country's illegal alien control ca-
pability.
IV. To give careful study to those other problems and suggestions for more
effective Customs and illegal alien control and for better labor/management rela-
tions in INS and the Customs Service which have been advanced by the labor
representatives in the course of discussions to date.
V. To review seriously and sympathetically any other proposals for more effec-
tive illegal alien control.
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500340004-0
 Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : 1CIIA-RDP75B0038OR000500340004-0
VT. To continue to support H.R. 982 (Rodino bill) restricting employment of
illegal aliens within the United States.
The AFL--GIO and AFUE Agree:
1. To ?ease all lobbying and other activities designed to defeat Reorganization
Plan No. 2 in the Congress. h
11. Accom)xmied by an Administration representative to visit personally before
Thursday with the Speaker of the house, and key supporters of the Waldie Reso-
lution in the house informing them that the AFL-CIO:) and AFGE have with-
drawn their apposition to the reorganization plan. Similar steps will be taken in
the Senate.
Ill. To inf arm member unions and affected membership immediately of the
withdrawal of labor opposition to the plan.
IV. To assist actively and publicly in securing passage of legislation prospec-
tively repealing Section 2 of the plan.
FRED V. NIALEK,
T)cpalty Diree,tor-0,11P.
CLYDE NI. WEBBER,
Prrsident, Amcriean, Federation of Government Employee,,'.
KI, NETI[ A. MEIKEI,JOILN,
Legislative Representative, AFL-CIO.
111?. LYNCH. We have honorably kept the terms of the agreement
reached with the administration and signed on May 29, 1973. At this
time, there remain several actions on, the part of the United Stares
Government regarding its undertakings to us. Among others, there is
an undertaking to enact a law to repeal section 2. This would be ac-
complished by the passage of }1.R. 82415.
We hold equally important the fulfillment by the Federal Govern-
ment of sections IT through VF of the administration's undertaking.
Notably, we seek the speediest accomplishment of section III, which
concerns the honoring of "OMB Director Ash's commitment of May 1.7,
1973 to Cha_rman. I olifield with respect to strengthening the coun-
try's illegal alien control capability."
That undertaking includes, among others, the recognition by CIO
Office of 111anagemo,it. and Budiret of the urgent need to improve the
control over illegal aliens entering the United States. Director Ash
wrote in this regard ass follows :
Because of the seriousness of the illegal alien problem and the importance of
protecting American jobs, the administration fully understands the need to in-.
crease the budgetary resources devoted to illicit alien control. We, in particular,
believe it important to add manpower to the internal investigative elements of
INS and to the Border Patrol. We would t1111s contemplate that, if the plan is
approved by the Congress, a substantial portion of the approximately nine
hundred positions which we now estimate will be transferred under the plan
Irom INS to the Bureau of Customs will be restored to INS as a result of budget
decisions to be made during the. next budget cycle. These positions should me
higher graded on the average than the ones lost, given the more complex nature.
of the alien control investigator's job.
Chairman FIOLTFTE:Ln. We understand that and we a.re. proceeding in
line with our commitment to the Memhers of Congress. We are legis-
lating this now. and of course we don't, have, the power to enforce
agreements by outside groups with the department involved; but we
are proceeding in good faith to report this bill out today to the full
committee. We hope next, week to have a full committee report the bill
out, and we will get it to the floor shortly thereafter. We believe that
in view of the vote of 281 favorably to our proposal, which was clearly
outlined on the floor as our commitment of the commitment of Mr.
Horton, and I, to do everything in. our power to bring this part of it
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500340004-0
 Approved For Release 2002/01/021.7CIA-RDP75B00380R000500340004-0
into agreement, and I think Mr. Ash has verified the administration's
position on it.
So I think we are moving along in a proper way. We appreciate
your concern.
If you would like, the rest of this can be put into the record, sir.
Mr. LYNcir. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Chairman IIOLIFIEI D. Thank you very much.
[The material referred to follows:]
On May 22, 1973 OMB Deputy Director Frederic V. Malek addressed a com-
munication to Chairman IIolifield, in which he stated the following :
1. UPGRADING TIIE COUNTRY'S ALIEN CONTROL CAPABILITY
a. A substantial INS presence will be maintained at ports of entry (see at-
tached fact sheet). INS immigration experts will continue to process the more
complex cases of questionable admissibility. A majority of existing INS secon-
dary inspection personnel will be retained at INS for this specific purpose.
b. Provided the plan is approved, OMB Director Ash has pledged by letter to
Chairman Iiolifield to increase the INS alien interdiction capability. Approxi-
mately 900 positions will be transferred from INS to Customs under the plan. If
the plan is approved, the Administration would be willing to support an FY-74
supplemental to restore 450 positions and to propose to Congress the restoration
of the remaining 450 spaces in the FY-75 budget.
c. Under the Ash proposal, the additional personnel would go primarily to
strengthen the Border Patrol and the investigative elements of INS-the two
organizational units of the Federal Government best able to impact the illegal
alien problem.
We have heard arguments since May 29 that some persons feel the OMB
commitment of 900 additional positions over the next two fiscal years is not as
fully binding on the Federal Government as it might have been if Section 2 of
Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1973 was being retained. For our part, we believe
that we have a clear moral commitment from the Executive Branch to strengthen
both the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Customs Service dur-
ing the next two fiscal years. We are convinced that this can be done best of all
by the addition of 900 positions to INS, divided between the Border Patrol and
INS Investigation/Inspection Staff. As to the Customs Service, we feel that we
have a commitment from OMB that it will withdraw its previous objections to
the reclassification by the Civil Service Commission of Customs inspectors' posi-
tions so as to establish them at the journeyman grade of GS-11, instead of the
present GS-9.
Mr. Chairman, you will appreciate that the discussions between OMB, on the
one hand, and our union and the AFL-CIO on the other hand, were conducted
freely and with candor. Our considerations were received with respect and our
arguments were heard with attention. In return, we wish to preserve as much of
the confidentiality of those meetings as we can. For this reason, we would not
wish to add more to our statement at this moment, reserving further comment
until after you have the views of the Office of Management and Budget.
Chairman IIOLIFIELD. Unless there are questions, we will proceed
to the next witness.
Thank you both.
Mr. LY NCrr. Thank you.
Chairman IIoLIFrmLD. Mr. John Murphy.
You have quite a long statement here. Most of us have read this
statement, sir.
The members have had an opportunity to read your statement and
our legislative task here this morning is to report H.R. 8245 to the
full committee.
Mr. ST GERMAIN. Could I ask unanimous consent that the record
show, that the executive session takes place subsequent to the testimony
of Mr. Murphy?
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500340004-0
 Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : IA-RDP75B0038OR000500340004-0
Mr. I [or,1,o:N. It is not executive.
Chairman HOLTFIELD. Mark-up of the bill under the new rules, un-
less action is taken to close the meeting, would not be in executive
Session.
Mr. ST (x;RArArN. That he suspend, but that the record show that his
statement came prior to the vote.
Chairman HOL7FTELD. Without objection, your statement will appear
at this point in the record, and, we will hear from you, sir.
STATEMENT OF JOHN d. MURPHY, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL CUS-
TOMS SERVICE ASSOCIATION; ACCOMPANIED BY RUSSELL
CHAMBE: S
ii [r. Ali' ;a-ljY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is John .J. Murphy. I am president of the National Customs
Service. I am accompanied by Mr. Russell. Chambers of our office.
I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that ray full statement be made a part
of the record.
Chairman Hor.iFrEin. It has :already been made a part of the record.
[The prepared statement, referred to follows:]
STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL CUSTOMS SERVICE ASSOCIATION ON II.R. 8245 AND
RELATED 1,EOISLATION CONCERNING REORGANIZATION PLAN No. 2 OF 1973
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee : For the record, my name is John
J. Murphy. I am President of the National Customs Service Association. The
National Cns'soms Service Association (NCSA) is an independent employee
organization representing employees of the Bureau of Customs, Department of the
Treasury. We are celebrating our 50th anniversary this year and over those live
decades have represented Customs employees in all occupations, at all grade
levels and in all geographical locations. Out 53 local branches represent Customs
employees stationed at ports and places throughout the mainland United States
and in the States of Alaska and Hawaii. We have members also in Puerto Rico
and the Virgil Islands as well as in foreign countries where there are United
States Customs facilities.
Our Association has been accorded National Consultation Rights by the Bureau
of Customs u.-der the provisions of Executive Order 11491, as amended. We are
the only organization that has these rights. Additionally, we have exclusive rec-
ognition as a result of elections in eight of the nine Customs Regions. We have
negotiated contracts with Regional alanageinent covering employees in the units
in seven of the Regions. Contract talks are presently going forward in the eighth
Region.
In giving our views on the legislation lefore you, Mr. Chairman, we do so
from the poin, of view of the Customs' employee who performs duties at land-
border ports, seaports large and small, the teaming airports and the one-man
ports in the hinter-lands.
We represent the employees who work in every aspect of the Customs' mission.
They include Customs Inspectors, Import Specialists and other technicians con-
cerned with the proper classification and value of imported merchandise, Special
Agents, Patrol Officers and others. The Customs Inspectors, who are the largest
segment of NCSA membership, form the first line of defense against the im-
portation of narcotic drugs and other illegal or prohibited items, and together
with Import Specialists form the barrier against undervaluation and fraud which
reduces the revenue and harms the legitimate commerce of the United States.
We have given long and serious thought to the ramifications of Reorganization
Plan No. 2 of 1973. We were greatly handicapped in our consideration of its
implications by the fact; that although we have the National Consultation Rights,
referred to above, no effort was ever made by the Office of Management and
Budget to inform us of the plans concerning reorganization until we made a
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500340004-0
 Approved For Release 2002/01/0219C1A-RDP75B00380R000500340004-0
specific request for information. This was long after the Plan had been sent to
the Congress and when, to all intents and purposes, OMB had already made final
decisions.
When OMB, belatedly and reluctantly, met with our representatives to discuss
the matter, everything was cut-and-dried and the sessions were merely informa-
tional ones telling us what OMB planned to do. This was also after OMB and
the representatives of AFL-CIO and AGE had signed a most improper agree-
ment bargaining away the rights of Customs employees in consideration of an
OMB commitment to make Section 2 of the Plan inoperative. We look upon this
agreement as improper, probably illegal, and completely contrary to ethical prac-
tices. Statements made by AFGE spokesmen, claiming to represent Customs em-
ployees, do not represent the views of this organization which is, as I have stated,
the representative of the majority of Customs employees.
Our concern goes greatly beyond the immediate effect on Customs Agents or
their transfer to the Drug Enforcement Administration. While we foresee many
complications inherent in this transfer, and because of poor morale, a consequent
lessening of the effectiveness of drug enforcement, we are more concerned with
the damage to the overall Customs' mission brought about by flaws that are in-
herent in the Reorganization Plan.
At the outset, Mr. Chairman, may I say that we fully realize that this Com-
mittee can do nothing at this point insofar as the Plan itself is concerned. Con-
gress has seen fit not to disapprove Plan No. 2 so it will become a law of the
land on July 1, 1973, with or without Section 2. However, it is still our considered
position that the reorganization plan route is the wrong road to follow in at-
tempting to achieve a unified command in the fight against narcotics. We restate
our original position on this matter : that is, that we recognize that narcotics
abuse is a national problem and that the strongest effort possible must continue to
be made in combating it. Our solution is simple : specific legislation should be in-
troduced in both the House and Senate calling for a unified, single command ; ex-
tensive hearings should be held ; every individual having information of value
concerning the drug problem should be encouraged to give evidence before the
Committees. Members of the Committees and Members of Congress generally,
should have the opportunity to question witnesses, to require full and complete
documentation, and to require administration witnesses to be exact and precise
concerning proposed changes including,such critical areas as jurisdictional au-
thority. A thorough airing should be given to the overlapping jurisdictions and to
assess the degree of duplication and alleged rivalry as of the moment of the hear-
ings. In this connection, we should be dealing with current events, rather than
incidents that occurred in prior weeks, months or even years. Input should be
obtained from all Federal agencies that have any connection whatsoever with
narcotics abuse enforcement.
Although the Reorganization Plan will be effective July 1, 1973, it is not too
late for the Congress to consider rectifying what we sincerely believe to be a
far-reaching error. We do not believe that Reorganization Plan No. 2 will fulfill
the needs of a unified command. We do not believe it will do what its proponents
claim it will accomplish. We foresee a proliferation of jurisdictional and over-
lapping problems. It is incredible that such a far-reaching plan will go into effect
without some of the basic requirements of budgeting, authority, jurisdiction and
transfer of personnel and equipment having been properly discussed, planned
and projected.
It has been repeatedly mentioned in the hearings, and in supporting documenta-
tion, that Reorganization Plan No. 2 would eliminate dual and conflicting efforts
in drug investigations.
It is our observation that competing and rival investigations are not caused
to any significant extent by the activities of Customs Special Agents. The
rivalries are a result of overlapping jurisdictions ; and the inexperience of the
new groups in the narcotics enforcement area established by previous reorgani-
zation plans. The Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD) was cre-
ated in 1968, the Office of Drug Abuse Law Enforcement (ODALE) was formed
on January 28, 1972, and the Office of National Narcotics Intelligence (ONNI) on
July 27, 1972.
There is no dispute that a unified command is essential to effective operations.
Because of the hasty and poor planning to regroup the current inefficient forces
that are now operating outside the Department of the Treasury, we feel that
Reorganization Plan No. 2 will have as dismal a record as its predecessors. There
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500340004-0
 Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : f4A-RDP75B00380R000500340004-0
is nothing in the past record that; would indicate that the Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA), another brand-new entity, would be any more effective
or successful, The essential ingredient of experience is obviously lacking.
In order to give moaning to the term "Unified Command", and be in a posi-
tion to effectively utilize the experience gained over many, many years of fighting
the drug menace, we recommend that all existing agencies with functions relat-
ing to the drug problem be placed under the Department of the Treasury insread
of an unnecessary, untried, and inexperienced new agency such as DEA.
It might be helpful to the Committee to have the legal bases for Customs drug
activities. We have therefore, searched the various statutes and related sources
covering these areas. We include them in Appendix I.
The history of the Customs Service shows that these authorities have been
used carefully and judiciously ; and the incidents of actual violations of indi-
vidual rights or over-zealousness have been few and far between.
With the unknown and untried agents of PEA, there is a distinct possibility
of some very unwholesome situations occurring considering the record of the
past among seine of the related groups.
Another area of considerable concern to us is the matter of jurisdiction out-
side ports of entry. It is our understanding that the implementation of the Plan
contemplates limiting Customs authority to certain narrowly-defined areas, pri-
marily the port, limits of ports of entry. We would like to have some clear-cut
explanation of this. We feel that any such limitation would effectively cripple
Customs efforts to carry out its mission. In view of the Customs record of accom-
plishment. such limitations would indeed be short-sighted and self-defeating.
As eve understand it, Customs and Immigration will continue to perform
their present border enforcement functions. In this respect, there will ho no
change brought iboitt by the Plan, with or without Section 2. However, Section
l, which sets up T)EA, raises a very interesting and important question : are we
now creating a third agency concerned with drug interdiction and investigation
and will this, contribute to a fragmentation of functions, duties and responsi-
bilities?
In spite of the claims of interagency rivalry and jealousy among the agencies
involved in the drug abuse fight, it should be borne in mind that Customs has
consistently mad the highest productivity in connection with the war against
narcotics.
At this tirre, -llr. Chairman, I respeotfu lv request that a report dated Febru-
ary 1, 1973, showing the drug seizures and arrests for 1972 be made a part of
the record of these hearings, (Appendix II). These figures clearly show the
continuing effectiveness of the Bureau of Customs in combating the narcotics
menace. It is because of this extraordinary record of accomplishment that our
organization as representative of the employees who do the job, find it hard
to understand why a winning team needs to be broken np and put under an
untried agora 'y.
if we were to be asked what is the single most critical point requiring clarifi-
cation, we would say it is the matter of jurisdiction. We need to know exactly
and precisely what Jurisdictional authority is to be vested in DEA and its
agents. The srnthority of Customs agents, inspectors and other officers is clearly
defined but the DEA is clouded with speculation and uncertainty.
'I_'he ctnestion of border searches is a critical one. Such searches must be judi-
ciously controlled to prevent violation of individual rights and to prevent un-
wholesome situations brought about by inexperience, over-zealousness or an atti-
tude that is incompatible with responsible enforcement work. We are concerned
about the role of DEA agents and wish to know specifically as to whether or not
they will operate within the realm of due process.
tin far his activities, dutieg and responsibilities have not been properly defined.
We understand that lie will be performing general investigative functions relat-
ing to the interdiction of drugs. We have no idea of the scope of his duties or
responsibilities. We do not know where lie begins and ends his investigations
vas-a-vas a l?ustoms inspector or other Customs official. We do not know whether
his :urthority encompasses the search of persons, vehicles or their baggage. We do
not know whether he would be authorized to make seizures and arrests, and
under what conditions. We also do not know his authority with respect to the
supervision or direction of Customs employees generally, and Inspectors in
particular.
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500340004-0
 Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500340004-0
21
As the representative of Customs career employees, we are quite naturally
concerned that the rights and career opportunities of our people be preserved.
We would specifically like to know if there is anything in the Plan or its imple-
menting determination that would in any way downgrade Customs functions or
prevent us from continuing to make high-level narcotics seizures.
We are well-aware that there have been numerous studies concerning the
feasibility, desirability and practicability of so-called one-stop and single inspec-
tions. The most recent study is that of the Comptroller General who, on May 30,
1973 in a Report to the Congress, recommended (Page 21) a single-agency man-
agement of port-of-entry inspections.
However, as we have repeatedly said, we have great reservations concerning
the wisdom, need and practicability of establishing a new agency to bring about
single direction. If a unified command is desirable, we feel it should be within
the framework of the existing agencies charged with responsibilities in the drug
field. Because of its unique position in the forefront of the drug fight for as long
as the problem has existed, the logical point for bringing about unified command
would be in the Department of the Treasury, under the Bureau of Customs.
There is no need to go into specifics as to why this is true. One need only look
at the extraordinary record of Customs in every aspect of its mission.
In conclusion, it is the firm position of the National Customs Service Associa-
tion that Reorganization Plan No. 2, with or without Section 2, cannot meet the
demands for a unified command in the fight against narcotics. We recommend
to this Honorable Committee and to the Congress that a study be undertaken
immediately to consider the feasibility of a unified agency to effectively combat
the drug menace. We believe that this calls for specific legislation so that every
person concerned may contribute input to the Congress ; and so arrive at a sound
decision based on the democratic legislative process.
Our Association would strongly support such an effort. We will make all of our
resources and the expertise of our members available to any Committee of Con-
gress that undertakes this task.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee for your patience
and courtesy. If there are any questions, I would be very happy to try to answer
them. Thank you very much.
APPENDIX I
LEGAL BASES FOR CUSTOMS DRUG ACTIVITIES
The legal bases for Customs drug activities may be found in the general
Customs and Customs criminal statutes, specific legislation relating to controlled
substances, and in the delegation orders and regulations issued pursuant to law.
GENERAL CUSTOMS LAWS
Congress has conferred broad authority upon Customs officers (either directly
or by delegation) to search persons, conveyances and merchandise entering the
United States from foreign countries for the purpose of protecting the revenue
and preventing the importation of merchandise, including controlled substances,
contrary to law. The more important statutes in tills area are :
18 U.S.C. 545 (formerly 19 U.S.C. 1593) which makes it a criminal offense
to smuggle or clandestinely introduce or bring in merchandise or to import
merchandise contrary to law.
19 U.S.C. 482 authorizes searches of persons, conveyances and containers.
19 U.S.C. 1461 authorizes the inspection of baggage and merchandise and
requires Customs supervision of unlading.
19 U.S.C. 1467 authorizes special re-examinations.
19 U.S.C. 1496 authorizes baggage examinations notwithstanding a decla-
ration and entry have been made.
19 U.S.C. 1499 requires imported merchandise to be examined by Customs.
19 U.S.C. 1581 authorizes boarding and searching of vessels; arrests and
seizures for breaches of the revenue laws.
19 U.S.C. 1582 provides that all persons coming from foreign countries
shall be liable to detention and search in accordance with regulations pro-
mulgated by the Secretary of the Treasury.
19 U.S.C. 1584 provides penalties for unmanifested goods (with specific
penalties for narcotics or marihuana) found on vessels or vehicles.
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500340004-0
 Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500340004-0
22
19 11.5.C. 1602-1614 provides the machinery for seizing, storing, forfeiting
and disposing of articles seized. by Customs officers.
19 1T.S.C. 1595a authorizes forfeitures of conveyances used in smuggling,
or used to aid or facilitate smuggling, etc.
19 U.S.C. 1701--1709 provides for the seizure and forfeiture of conveyances
used in smuggling.
19 ('FR part (i requires aircraft arriving from outside the U.S. to make
their first arrival at a Customs airport.
26 U.S.C. 7607 authorizes Customs officers to carry arms, serve warrants;
and in addition, authorizes them to make warrantless arrest for narcotic
and marihuana law violations.
31 U.S.C. 1039 authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to administer
oaths, issue subpoenas and compel the attendance of witnesses for any in-
vestigation which in his opinion is necessary and proper for the enforce-
ment of 18 IJ.S.C. 545 with respect to any controlled substances.
21 U.S.C. 881 applies the Customs seizure and forfeiture laws to controlled
substances. This section also provides that persons designated by the At-
torney General will perform the duties imposed upon Customs officers under
the ('ns'.oms seizure and forfeiture laws, except to the extent that such
duties arise from seizures and. forfeitures effected by Customs officers.
21 T.S.C. 906 provides that nothing in the Comprehensive Drug Abuse
Prevention and Control Act of 1970 shall derogate from the authority of the
Secretary of the Treasury under the Customs and related laws.
49 U.S.C. 781, et seq., prohibits the transportation of contraband (in-
cluding narcotics and marihuana) and empowers the Secretary of the
Treasure to designate officers to enforce its provisions.
The Treasury Department's Bureau of Customs registered a record number of
drug seizure:, and arrests in 1972 according to a report by U.S. Commissioner
of Customs Z ernon D. Acree, issued today.
Drug seizUres climoed by 7,420 -to a toi-al of 18,107 for the year, a 69 percent
increase. Arrests for drug and narcotic violations rose by 1,253 to 8,934, a climb
of more than 16 percent.
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Edward L. Morgan hailed the figures as
reflecting the increased effectiveness of the Bureau's drug interdiction prog:cam,
and the cooperative efforts of Customs and the Bureau of Narcotics and Danger-
ous Drugs, and other enforcement agencies. He said the seizures have removed
significant amounts cf hard drugs from the marketplace thereby keeping them
out of the hands of the young people of America.
Commissioner Acree reported particularly sharp Increases in seizures of
cocaine. hashish, marihuana, and dangerous drugs. The estimated street sale
value of all Customs confiscated drugs in 1972 was almost $400 million, he
said.
Mr. Acree credited Customs' continuing intensified anti-narcotic enforcement
program with producing the record results. The combination of solidly trained
and experienced personnel backed by the latest in sophisticated equipment have
proved hialily effective against smugglers, the Commissioner reported.
Major cases during the year have included two 22-pound heroin seizures, one
of Miami on April 7, and another at Champlain, N.Y., on October 13; a cocaine
seizure of 32.5 pounds at Niagara Falls, N.Y., on November 25; a 1,330-pound
hashish seizure, the largest on record by Customs at Portland, Oregon, on Janu-
ary 7: and six marihuana seizures in the 2.000 to 4,000 pound range.
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500340004-0
 Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500340004-0
23
Number of seizures:
Heroin_____________ 235
257
221
324
568
617
Cocaine__________r 562 2
270
2 322
137
239
639
0plum ------------- 20
34
37
105
124
113
Other narcotics_________________________
266
246
275
Marijuana---------- 3 2, 026 2,
246
2,504
6,031
6,312
11,254
Hashish__________________
26
379
1,117
1,757
119
3
Dangerous drugs________________
604
829
1,409
1,441
,
2,090
Total____________ 2,843 3,437
4,292
9,389
10,687
18, 107
Quantity in pounds:
Heroin_____________ 194.65 224.70
209.58
346
1
108.85
215
66
Cocaine ------------ r 1,447.57 2 177.20
2155.59
376.11
,
166. 12
.
620.69
Opium____15.9 28.11
Other nar
ti
18.92
28.15
47.93
52.35
co
cs___________________ ................
25.86
106.37
188.84
Marijuana__________ 348, 410. 12 64,412.38 59,839.50
149,772.33
201,557.68
365,420.51
Hashish________________________ 131.88 1,602.02
Dan
ero
d
3,811.03
6,899.69
8,754.05
g
us
rugs
(5-grain units)___________________ 4,696,347 8,193,173
10, 715, 920
8,842,273
12, 759, 079
I Includes dangerous drugs of over 1,000,000 5-grain units and other narcotics.
2 Includes other narcotics.
Includes hashish and marijuana.
Mr. MvrtruY. Thank you, sir.
I would just like to very briefly raise a few points.
First of all, the National Customs Service Association is an inde-
pendent employee organization representing employees of the Bureau
of Customs. and the Department of the Treasury. We represent the
employees who work in every aspect of the customs' mission. They
include customs inspectors, import specialists, and other technicians
concerned with the proper classification and value of imported mer-
chandise, special agents, patrol officers and others. The customs in-
spectors, who are the largest segment of NCSA membership, form the
first line of defense against the importation of narcotic drugs and
other illegal or prohibitive items, and together with import spe-
cialists, form the barrier against undervaluation and fraud which
reduces the revenue and harms the legitimate commerce of the United
States.
We have given long and serious thought to the ramifications of Re-
organization Plan No. 2 of 1973.
I might say at this point, Mr. Chairman, that we appreciate that
this committee can do nothing about the plan; nevertheless, we think
it would be of benefit to the record to have certain aspects of it made a
part of the record.
First of all, our organization was greatly handicapped in our consid-
eration of its implications by the fact that although we have the na-
tional consultation rights and are the only organization in the customs
service that has these rights, and although we have exclusive recog-
nition and aid of the nine customs regions, no effort was ever made
by the Office of Management and Budget to inform us of the plans
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500340004-0
 Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000500340004-0
24
concerning t:zese organizations until we made a specific request for
this information. This was long after the plan had been sent to Con-
gress and when, to all intents and purposes, OMB had already made
final decisions.
When OMB belatedly and reluctantly met with our representatives,
it was just simply to give us information concerning what they already
had planned to do, and this was also after OMB and representatives of
AFL-CIO and AFGE had signed what we considered to be a most
proper agreement bargaining away the rights of customs employees
in consideration of an OMB commitment to take section 2 out of the
plan.
I must respectfully disagree with Mr. Wydler with regard to the
propriety of this agreement.
We thought it improper and contrary to ethical practices, and state-
ments made by the AFGE purporting to represent customs employees
are incorrect since they do not represent the views of our members
who represent the majority of customs employees.
I would like to have you know, Mr. Chairman, that our concern
goes a great deal beyond the immediate effect of customs agents or
their transfer to the Drug Administration. We foresee many compli-
cations inherent in this transfer, and because of poor morale, a con-
sequent lessening of the effectiveness of drug enforcement; we are
also concerned with the damag~Lng of overall customs administration
brought about by flaws that are inherent in the plan.
Our solution to this is simple. Specific. legislation should be intro-
[need in both the House and Senate, calling for unified single com-
mand, exten,ive hearings should be held. Every individual having
information of value concerning the drug problem should be encour-
aged to give evidence. Members of the committees and Members of
Congress generally should have the opportunity to question witnesses.
which was not the case in this plan, and to require full and complete
documentation and require Administration witnesses to be exact, pre-
cise-concerning the proposed changes rather than the generalized
explanations that have been made.
I might say, also, Mr. Chairman, that I am quite disappointed
that--
Chairman IIOLIFIELD. I am going to ask you, Mr. Murphy.
I have rend your message and it has been included in the record.
I certainly intend no discourtesy to you, but time is pressing and
your statement. will be put in the record in its entirety. You know
that the Chair recognizes some of these problems that we have, and
I certainly agree with you that a more diligent consultation should
have been made, not only with you---
Mr. Mirxrii r. I will be very happy to cooperate. with you in the
interest of time.
Chairman IIOLIFrELD. But, also, with the AFGE group. The record
shows that there was not a proper contact in advance with the people
affected. We have made our thoughts known on that subject, and if
there are plans presented in the future to this committee, or the sub-
committee I chair, I am going to assure you that if they have not
had contacts with the employees organizations affected, I am going
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000500340004-0
 Approved For Release 2002/01/02 2,fIA-RDP75B00380R000500340004-0
to ask them to make those contacts before they come before us to
testify.
Mr. Mm 'IiY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman 1101,1IELD. That is in approval of the position that you
have taken on this matter of prior consultation.
Mr. MURPHY. Let me close out my statement, Mr. Chairman, by
thanking you for the opportunity to appear here and to suggest that in
order to give meaning to the term "unified command". and to be in a
position to effectively utilize the experience gained over the years of
fighting the drug menace, that existing agencies with functions relat-
ing to the drug problem be placed under the Department of the Treas-
ury instead of the unnecessary, untried, and inexperienced new agency.
Chairman IIOLIFIELD. I thank the gentleman for his testimony.
This general subject matter is not primarily a matter of statutory
jurisdiction in this committee. Reorganization plans are. However, the
economy and efficiency of the operation of Government is within the
jurisdiction of this committee and Mr. Randall's subcommittee is go-
ing into some phases of that matter at the present time.
I am sure if you have some pertinent information to give to Mr.
Randall's subcommittee that a request would be honored for you to
come before his subcommittee. They are principally looking at the
illegal immigration problem. We are also interested in the drug prob-
lem. The drug problem is before the Special Studies Subcommittee;
Mr. Hicks is the chairman of that.
So, I will just alert you to those facts, and if you care to take ad-
vantage of them, you may.
Mr. MuRPIIY. Thank you.
Mr. IIoRTON. Mr. Chairman, I move that H.R. 8245 be reported to
the full committee with the recommendation it do pass.
Chairman IIOLIFIELD. Is there a second?
Mr. WYDLER. I second.
Chairman IIOLIFIELD. It has been moved and seconded that H.R.
8245 be referred to the full committee with the recommendation that
it be passed.
The Chair notes a quorum is present.
Those in favor signify by saying aye.
[A chorus of ayes.]
Chairman HOLIFIELD. Contrary, no.
[No response.]
Chairman HOLIFIELD. Let the record show that a quorum is present,
and that the vote is unanimous.
Mr. HORTON. Mr. Chairman, I do have a proxy from Mr. Erlenborn
and would like him to be recorded as in favor.
Mr. DAHLIN. And also the proxy of Mr. Moorhead and Mr. Jones.
Chairman HOLIFIELD. Call the roll.
The CLERK. Chairman Holifield.
Chairman IIOLIFrELD. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Rosenthal.
[No response.]
The CLERK. Any proxy?
[No response.]
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000500340004-0
 Approved For Release 2002/01/0226 CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500340004-0
The CLERK. Mr. Wright.
[No response.]
The CLERK. Mr. St Germain.
Mr. ST GERMAIN. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Fuqua.
Mr. FUQUA. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Moorhead.
Chairman HOLIFIELD. I have a proxy. Aye.
The C'r.ERxc.Mr. Jones.
Chairman] IOLIFIFGD. I have a proxy. Aye.
The CLERK. Congressman.1-Iorton.
Mr. HORTON. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Erlenborri.
Mr. HORTON. Aye, by proxy.
The CLERK. Mr. Wvdler.
Mr. WYDLE.R. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Brown.
Mr. BROWN. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Mallary.
Mr. MALLARY. Aye.
Chairman HOL1FIELD. Motion is passed. The bill is reported favor-
ably to the full committee.
Mr. HORTON. I talked with Mr. Rosenthal, and I believe he said he
would leave his proxy. Maybe we could leave the record open.
Chairman II0L[FIELD. If there is no objection, the record will be left
open for the filing of Mr. Rosenthal's proxy.
The committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:55 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to recon-
vene subject to the call of the Chair.]
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500340004-0
 Approved For Release 2
2VO10I Ik P75BOO38OR000500340004-0
OTHER CORRESPONDENCE RELATIVE TO THE hIEARING
THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE TREASURY,
Washington, D.C., June 18, 1973.
Chairman, Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : Reference is made to your request for the views of this
Department on H.R. 8245, "To amend Reorganiaztion Plan Numbered 2 of 1973."
The proposed legislation would amend Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1973 to
repeal provisions providing for the transfer to, and the performance by, the Sec-
retary of the Treasury of functions of the Attorney General, the Department of
Justice and any other officer or agency of the Department of Justice, with respect
to the inspection at regular inspection locations at ports of entry of persons and
documents of persons entering or leaving the United States.
The proposed legislation incorporates the provisions of a draft bill submitted
to the Congress by the Office of Management and Budget on May 29, 1973.
The Department recommends the enactment of H.R. 8245.
The Department has been advised by the Office of Management and Budget that
there is no objection to the submission of this report to your Committee and that
enactment of H.R. 8245 would be consistent with the Administration's objectives.
Sincerely yours,
EDWARD C. SCHMIDT,
General Counsel.
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR & CONGRESS OF
INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS,
Hon. CHET HOLIFIELD Washington, D.C., June 19, 1973.
,
Chairman, House Government Operations Committee, U.S. House of Represent-
atives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : It is our understanding that the House Committee on
Government Operations will on Thursday, June 21, 1973 take up for consideration
H.R. 8245, the bill introduced by yourself and Representative Frank Horton.
H.R. 8245 would repeal section 2 of Reorganization Plan Number 2 of 1973
under which major elements of the inspection functions, involving some 900
employees of the Immigration and Naturalization Service would be transferred
to the Bureau of Customs. As you know, the AFL-CIO Executive Council vigor-
ously opposed this transfer.
Enactment of II.R. 8245 is called for in order to carry out the terms of the
agreement that was reached early this month among representatives of the
AFL-CIO, the American Federation of Government Employees and the Deputy
Administrator of the Office of Management and Budget, that section 2 of Re-
organization Plan Number 2 should not be allowed to go into effect and that
legislation should be sought to accomplish this purpose. H.R. 8245 is designed to
accomplish this objective. H.R. 8245 has the support of the AFL-CIO and we urge
its prompt approval by the Committee on Government Operations and the House
of Representatives.
Sincerely,
ANDREW J. BIEMILLER,
Director, Department of Legislation.
(27)
0
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000500340004-0