\

, :11

'f "j ,f 1 t

'.J'

,)

National Criminal Justice Reference Service

nCJrs This microfiche was produced from documents received for inclusion in the NCJRS data base. Since NCJRS cannot exercise control over the physical condition of the documents submitted, the individual frame quality will vary. The resolution chart on this frame may be used to evaluate the document quality.

-~.ti

1.0

IIIII~

IIIIIJ£ IIIII~ 111111.4 111111.6 .

)-.. MI9ROCOPY RESOLUTION' TEST CHART ¥

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANOAROS·1963·A

j

I .,._ .. _",.,_. ____ 1] .. . ~,--"'"---, ....... -~ " -~...,- ... ~,..-,~-,. --~, .. -'"'-,..... ~

<; .::;

/" ,"'~ __ ~~" ,,_mor"" HtilifiIllGlI'Jt"S' • 'H+ri' ooI~" -. r~'

Microfilming procedures used to create this fiche comply witn .. the standards set forth in 41CFR 101-11.504 .

. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the author(s) and do not represent the official position or polici~s of the U. S. Department of Justice.

Nalio!1illlnstitute .!>f.J~Stice- - . iJ ~ __ _ United States Department of Justice _ .. - ..... Washington. D. C. 205&1'" ~

>.'. ,~

,- --., -. ~- .. , ,~." .... ~-,....- ......... -.."'"-<-~--- ,...~- ·_ ......... r-·~v_ ... ~ ........ -" .. _~,_._<. _. -." , .... _____ .--.", __ ._"~ __ .. "~~ _~ .... ~,_ ._'. ,/1_ ._~~_>"

./

'.

o

\

DATE FILMED

-

If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov.

,-'.\

r r

r

I . -~

. .. " . ~\

? I ,

-',~~~i/iiIlIIM~ __ ~M'!J~','~~~~~' ~l

:,) ))

~

THE MEXICAN CONNECTION

\,

HEARINGS BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE JUVENILE DELINQUENCY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON· TiIlf JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE,

.,

: NINETY-FIFTH CONGRESS.

: " SECOND SESSION

ON

llNITED STATES EFFORTS TO HALT HEROIN IMPORTATION:

21HlU

ERADICA1.'ION AND ENFORCEMENT IN MEXICO SOUTHWEST BORDER CONTROL

FEBRUARY 10 AND APRIL 19, 1978

" Printed for the use' of the Oommitteeon th'e Judiciary

, i ,~, ",

I N'CJRS

1 • j . .

u.s. GOVERNMENT PRINTING bFFIfJj..".QU smoA-"; WASHINGTON: 1078 .,A\... I "w

l~or snle by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. GovernmentPrlntJDlr om(~ Washington, D.C. 20402

Stock Number 052-070-04709-7

\

1

r r

" I

~ I

t I \:

OOMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY [95th Congress]

JAMES O. EASTLAND, Mississippi, Cllalrman . h tts STROM THURMOND, South Carolina

EDWARD M. KENNlllDY, Massac use CHARLES MeC. MATBIAS, In., Maryland BIRCH BAYH, Indiana I WILLIAM L. SCOTT, Virginia ROBERT C. BYRD, West Vlrgln a PAUL LAXALT Nevada JAMES ABOUREZK, South Dakota ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah JAMES B. ALLEN, Alabama MALCOLM WALLOP Wyoming JOSEPH R. BIDEN, In., Delaware . - , JOHN C. CULVER, Iowa HOWARD M. METZENBAUM, Ohio DENNIS DIilCONCINI, Arizona PAUL HATFIELD, Montana

FRANCIS C. ROSIilNumnomn, Ollie/ Oounllel anll Bto!! Dlreotor

-SUBCOMMITTEE To INVESTIGATE JUVENILE DELINQUENCY IN THE UNITED STATES

JOHN C. CULVlllR, Iowa, 01lalrman CHARLES MeC. MATHIAS, Jn., Maryland

BIRCH BAYH, Indlap.a gl I MALCOLM WALLOP Wyoming ROBERT C. BYRD, West Vir n a '

STmPBmN J. RAPP, Sta!! Dlreotor JOSIilPBINIil GITTLmn, Ollie/ Counsel

(II)

.l ___ ~------- " ..

"1\

,:,:

•

CONTENTS

Statement of­FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 19-78

Arellan!?, Richard, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-AmerIcan Affairs, Department of State ______ . __________________ _ BenSinger, Peter, Administrator, Drug Enforcflment Administration,

accompanied by Jacques Kier~. regional director; David Woods, Trizo coordinator; and Jerry .1\.elly, special agent, Mexico .city, Mexico _________________________________ , ___________________ _

Bourne, Dr. Peter, Special Assistant to the President for Health Issues~pirector, Office of Drug Abuse Policy ___________________ _

Culver, Hon. John C., a U.S. Senator from Iowa _________________ _ Falco, Mathea, Senior Adviser to the Secretary of State and Director

for International Narcotic Control Matters, Dflpartment of State __ Written questions from Senator Culver to Peter Bensinger, answered L. Apl'il18, 1978 ______________________________ •. ___________________ _

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 19, 1978

Anderson, William J., Deputy Direotor, General Government Divi~ sion, General Aooounting Offioe, accompanied by Patrick Gormley, Los Angeles regional office ___________________________________ _

Armistead Rex ... Director, Regional Organi.zed Crime Information Center, New Orleans, La ____________________________ . ________ _ Bensingeu. Peter, Administrator, Drug Enforoement Administration __ Chase!!! Hobert, Commissioner, U.S. Customs SerVice, accompanied

by ueorge Corcoran Assistant Commissioner, Office of Investiga-tions; and Raymond Mintz, Director, Teohnicai Support __ .. ____ _

Culver, Hon. John C., a 'O.S. Senator from Iowa ___________________ _ Davi~ Rex D., Direotor, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, U.I:!. Department of the Treasury ___________________________ _ Grimble, Terry, director, Arizona Drug Control District. __________ _ Haoker, Floyd, agent in oharge, Narootlcs DiviSion, Texas Department _ of PUblio Safety ____________________________________________ _

Pietrafeso, Ron agent in charge, narcotios seotion, Colorado Orga-nized Crime Strike Foroe ____________________________________ _

Sava, Charles, Assooiate Commissioner for Enforoement, Immigration and Naturalization Service, U.S. Department of Just oe _________ _

Williams, Richard, Assist,ant Director, Drug Abuse Policy, Domestio Polloy Staff, White House _________________________________ .. __

APPENDIX

Appendl~ A: ~:~f~p~~d statements submitted Cor the record: ... \ . r

(,,".'.:',{g. HI.P-f"ir 0)· FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1978 . 1 \ r..,I7",.. I, ~

/ J!eter B. Bensinger, Administrator, Drug Enforoement Administra-_"

[Mtion, Department of Justice _________________________________ _

y,.:;~ .. ~1 athea Faloo, Senior Adviser to the Seoretary of State .and Director j" 1 for International Narootios Control Matters ___________________ _ .. (j. Riohard G. Arellano, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs ________________________________________ .: __ _

(m)

Page 36

12

3 1

31

44

49

66 82

85 47

89 66

67

66

87

55

(

.\

\

\~

"-(

r

" 1

IV

S::f~(q".(l.,cl ''''j WEDNESDAY, APRIL 19, 1978

vC WW~~r::r~i 1~~~~~~r~~o~u:!_ ~!~~:~o:~ ~~~~~~_~~_v_e~~~~~: ~iWJ p;~ Richard L. Williams, Assistant Director (Drug Abuse Policy), Domes-Jv(.., ~ tic Polioy Staff ________ . __ . ___________________________________ :w 126

'J' ',' Robert E. Chasen, CommIssIoner of Customs ______________ ~..Q 128 . harles Sava, Associate Commissioner for Enforoement, ImmIgration

and Naturalization Service__________ ____ __ __ __ ____ __ __ __ ____ __ 134 Rex D. Davis, Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacoo, and Firearms,

U.S. Treasury DepartmenL__________________________________ 137

Appendix B: Eradication and Enforoement in Mexioo-Additional material sub­

mitted for the record:

I. Official Dooument

Results of the Government of Mexico and Aviation Assooiates Inter-national joint inspeotion of narootios-growing areas______________ 141

II. Newspaper and Magazine Artioles

. The Continuing Traffio in Mexican Heroin, by Jaok Anderson, from the Washington Post, January 81

1978 _________________________ _ Mexioo Wars on Poppy Growers, oy Jaok Anderson, from the Wash-ington Post, January Wt.,1978--- _____________________________ _ Mexioan Connection Is urying Up, by Jaok Anderson, from the

Washington Post, January 14f

1978 ___________________________ _ Mexioo May Seek Aid To Rep ace Drug Crops, by Mike Gallagher,

from the Albuquerque Journal, April 7, 1978 ___________________ _ Mexioo Helps United States Fight Drugs-Btg Gains Reported in

Cutting Down Opium Crop; End, of Illegal Heroin Produotion by 1980 Seen, by James Nelson Goodsell, from the Christian Soience

Pa~~~~~~n~P:~~ l~a~?j~~~a -w ii,-from "Thii -New York Ti~es Maga: zine, August 13, 1978, by Jesse Kornblutb. ____________________ _

Appendix C: Southwest Border Control-Additional material submitted for the

reoord: I. Offioial Doouments

145

146

147

148

149

150

Memorandum of Understanding Between U.S. Customs Service/Drug Enforoement Administration _____________________________ .. __ __ 157

Memorandum from Peter n. Bensinger, Administrator, Drug Enforce-ment Administration___ ______ ____________ ______ ____ __ __ __ __ __ 161 Department of Justioe-Agreement Between Immigration and Natu-

ralization Servioe and the Drug Enforoement Administration______ 162 Agreement between the United States of Amerioa and the United

Mexioan States regarding mutual assistanoe between their Customs Services____________________________________________________ 164

An overview of arms smuggling into Mexioo in exohange for narootics, ''''. r; by the El Paso Intelligenoe Center, Novemb. er 15, 1976___________ 167 VI &!order Management .and Interdiotion-an Interagency Revie~-bY~?

l the Offioe of Drug Abuse Polioy, September 71,.!977 ________ ~~D 170

Illegal entry at United States-Mexioan border-lvlUltiageMY Enforoe-c::.-'D '> I:) ment Efforts Have Not Been Effeotive in Stemming the Flow of·.

. ',' '~:" '. Drugs and People, Comptroller General's Report to the Congress, ""nj,l;:':;~.' Deoember 2, 1977 ___________________________________________ ~ .. 294

t~·:~,~ '" .,' Reorganization options related to Border Management, draft options v. " ""''i "-i by the President's Reorganization projeot, Deoember 14, 1977 ____ .s 345

II. Newspaper and Magazine Artioles

EI Paso Drugs "Out of Control", by James Nelson Goodsell, from the Christian Scienoe Monitor, January 19,1978____________________ 355

Drug Agents Stress the Traffiokerl Not the Traffic, by James Nelson GOodsell, from the Christian SOlenoe Monitor, January 25, 1978___ 356

f

I

' .. lII/IllII!iTli1n$1a~~~!~~7"\

t4 ,.

"

V

Hllge Radar Planes To Join "War" on Drug Smugglers by Robert Kaylor,. from the Washington Star Maroh 26 1978 '

U .. S. Sturues How To Plu~Border, by Jack And~rson froii;iiie-Wash:

J ld~gtfon PHost, April 7, 19 8 _____________________ ~ __________ _

u ,0 ary _ ears Agent DUemm~ by Miller Bonner from the San D AngeAlo SttandFard,. AprOU 20, 197 -- .. --------------~ ____________ _

rug gen s euamg vel' Bust., by Mark Volger from the San A~gelo Standar~, Al?rU ?O, 1978 _________________ ~ ____________ _

BustlDg the HerolD PipellDI!!. by Dennis A. Williams and Sylvester Monroe, from Newsweek lVJ.a~ 22 1978

The Enemy Within, from the Texas Monthly--Sepi;iiib-er-i97S--by Kaye Northcott _________________________ : _______________ ~ __ _

Pare 357

358

359

360

361

363

"~-;1

\

II

(

"~,)I " \ '

....

..

'\ ·4 L J " ~ ~

" ' "~I fill'

i. "'" .. f I ..

()

la_Ill" La 8!

~I

123!

, Current'iJifoniititiio'll ehow;l1ttmt·thiil' perceht",ge b~ drop})lld &iglilfioantlyin the last 2 years, 'tiue mBitily' tG'·tlie ,Mexioan-U.S.' 'cooperatiVe' camp4lgn, tberadi .. • ~ate opium popPy, oultivation through the Wle of her~ioldes. Mexioo, however, is still oonsidered to'betbe'majorBoUroe of heroin reaohiDg tbls country. " AI,though" mea$gful filJUJ:es on u!ldooumel)te~ lie~ lWel;u~rd to· OOme by,

I.NS ,«nta sh:o~ thBt,f, rQ~,' '1971 tbl'O~gh1975' t1l~ nUiDb'er, ;qI..SUOh~,atten:s .appre-, b,en«ed ipo~Bfl~j~,hl\ab6~t 85 pl)~Q8DHrom420J2:6 to .7ooiUQ,o. Most, undoou .. mented a1i~,AApreh'e~d~c:l are ~ex,l0~-;:-:abj)ut.9upel,'Cllqt. '\"

Th~, Ji'(\d(jral'p.~ncly pn. Pf(Wentin~ilJegal inu'liigrationemphasi21~0~-terdliltion at the bordllr rat.liertMn apprehe~lon oriUegalaJ.iensat'ter aettlement-.. For!drugs­the, PoU9yoalla f<lr g1¥#~g pdorlty in both Bupplf~and demand l'eduotiqJi:' ellpr.ts tottio~e :dl'ugsw~~J;I.)~erentl1 pose a greater rlSkto thelndlVidual and :W,a'O(;let1. ~eroin is· the tOp'~pdorlty dr}lg..' , .;. ,"\":'.' .. '.~~' '

'''I'I!lDlilnAlf,AGI!lNOJES R;ESPONSIBLE I'OR BO;tlDJiln OONTROL "0 • ••• ,~

C,' ontrol of thebol'd,ar is baSioally a task of oontroJlin~ the movement of peopie~) v~hloles, airorat't; boats, and goods. There are over 400 Federal laws and re8lllatione' governing en~ and' dep~ture of poople and goods aoross the border. Agenoies~ With a role in controlIingthe Southwest borderinolude the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI); BUI:e~u of Aloohol, Tobaooo, and Firearms (BATF); Deport­ment" of "Defense; Federal Aviation Adminlstl'ation (FAA); Coast Guard; Department of 'Agricultw'e j arid. Public Health Servioe.The,prinoipalagencies in.­volvedin law enforcement are the Customs Service; Immigration and Naturali" zation Servioe (INS)J6Jidtlie Drug Enfo~ileinent Administration (DEA).

From a IBwDenforcement standpoint, the primarr responsibilities of those three agenoie~ at the border are: " , '.

Preventhigthe'illegal entry of persons into the 'United States, Preventing,ciontt'aband from entering the country, and Investigating ,narcotics an,d dangel'oUs drug viQlntlons, In carrying out these'respoJlBibilltles, both INS and Customs use patrol of­

fioers, port-of~entry inspeotors, and Investigators, DEA Is the sin Ide Federal agenoy . charged with responsibility for investigation pertaining to narooilcs and dangerous drug vioJatprs. , ': .

'. S~ugiders en~er the United. States t:W four modes: Thl'OUgh ports of entry; I:!y boatlnto oOBStal~reas betwilenports of entry; on fopt or by vehiole between. Ilbrts of entrnor,.ove1' the border br air. P.or,s of entry

Before ci'oBsin/:l·the border into the,United States, vehioles and pedestrians are sto, pped at ,the primary inspeotion'lanes where OnlY, the most.cursor,y inspeCti, one of vehicles" persons, au,d .. 'I:!uggsge·are oonducted.' The primary inspectors are responSible :for de'terminfbg . wllether a vehicle and its (oocupants or a pedestrian should be, referred to the seooildBl'Y 'iilSpeetiion' area for a 'thorough examination. euatoms'imdINS'shore:responBibillt1 for staffing ·the primary 'lanes;' .' ~qnd,p.aeroI8batlUlpn .porla:oJ, em",' " '

'The, vaat ll1'elis between the .ports :of ,entry along the United, States-Mexico border and ,the, limited· resources. available topreventt iUe~al entry. demand. that avuilable ~ources·,bedeployed, in.a :lIiannel1to gaiti optilnum results. The INS, Border,PAtrol!e.nd'theOUstoJlls Patrol~ve overlapping. roles for conttol of illegal movement across the land borders 6etween the ports.· The patterns of illegal, entry result i~'l)onollntration ol,eaoh agenoy's patrol officers· in, the', SlUlle high-volume, crossing,are~. . ; Ai,r interdiction ,

• A4' interd,lotion foroes ,bavehad some suoeess ... apprehending ,smugidersusing. aircraft tocrQBS, thl) border_ 'fhe results to date, .however, ~ considereu marginl\i.,

The,airoraft deployed. by INS,are not o~pableof air interceptiop,operations. ThOse airoraft operate at low a{tittid~ and at slow speedS in support of Border PatJ,'~l ~und :8lltMties.S1m1lar airoraft are oporotedby CusWJnB in support of Customs .Pa\l'oL8~Q~d operatioM. . , ." , " ' " " OEi\'s·&W ,oPerations are .d.e.voied ma1nly to s,urveillonce, :/lights ·with an inoreaa-;

iJJ8lluplbp,r ot,P",ot8 ,!\Dd a$rorat't being devoted to spellinl 0Pllfat{ons. Mari.nU;Zleridic#on ~. ". ,. .' ' . > OuStoms, DEA, and 'thifOQaiJt Guard nIl havel:b1!l$ln p~veiltinlt drug smug~

$Ungb7, sea. The agentlitlS ,lfuve h(l,d some suocess in Jntel'dillting marlhuan~ bemg smuggJedbyeea;Tlie COilst Guard;os'you know, hnsrnadesolJl,e l(U'ge Beh .. U,l'~ 011'

2G-024-78-0

-,

<l..l

r -~

! \

, .

124

the Enst Coast in recent months. Genera.lly, however, marine enforcement efforts have rarely result!ld in hard nal'cotil's seizures in other than user amounts.

ACHIEVEMENTS OFlIORPER l,AW ENFORCEMENT

While It is not possible to measure the deterrent effect of the current level of border law enforce~t, the available supply of drugs und the estimated nllmber of illegal aliens attest to the fnct that it hilS not been n sei-loUR impediment to iIIegnl entry. The substllutial Federal investment for enforcement at the Southwest border' is mihleVing only a limited measurable impact on the drug and allen problem,

)3Ol\detlol'ces interdict only a small quantlt.y of the estimated he\,oin and cocaine ent~i4ie United States from Mexico. Most seizures are of mnrihuana. In fiscnl ~.s..W6;:Customs and INS seized about 2 percent of the heroin, less than 1 per­.eent of the cocnine, nnd 10 percent of the marihuana cstimated t,o come from and ~;l\{exlco. When DEA's border area seizures are added, these intcrceptions .&1 6 'percent of the heroin, 3 percent of the cocaine, and 13 percent of the ~lhuan~, It is fuirly obvious that the quuntity of drugs being interdicted is not .mving a significnnt impact on the drug proble'!1' This is especially true when o~e considers that these figurcs prcsume the drug sOlzures to be 100-percent. pure while the purity of border seilmres arc generally significantly less-usually below 50 percent purity. ,

Border apprehensions seldom involve high-level traffickers, The overwhelmmg Ipajority of persons cl'ossing the border' in posses~ion of drugs who, are appre­hended tv Customs and INS lire drug USers, small-time operators, COIlI'II)l'S, or low­level :~~dibel's of drug tmfficking ol'ganizatiollS, DE A's data show that less than 2 percent of the interdictions refurred from INS and Customs involve major violators, anclllbout three-fomths of these w~,re marihuana violators.

The results with respect to appmhensio·.l o'i aliens ure more impressive but t.he problem remains serious, :Mol'Q illegal nliens arc successful in getting into the United States than are prevented from entedng. Mllny uliens apprehonded nro repeaters; some have been upprehended as muny as 10 times.

PROBLEMS A~'FECTIYG BORDER LAW ENI'ORCEl\IFlNT

Although border control alone will not solve the drug or illegal nlien problems, it is a necessary clement if the Nation is ever to control these problems, We believe thnt much more could be done if Federlll borcl!'.!' law enforcement activities wero bettel' plunned, coordinllted, integruted, lind executed, 'I'he efficiency lind effective­ness of law enforcement efforts at the border would be enhanced if intelligenco support wus improved ami UIC costly overlapping and pOOl' coordination of enforce­mont activities and support systems were corrected,

These lire some of the specific problems we identifiec;l: There WIIS a shortage of inspectors at thc four ports of entry wo visited nlong

the Southwest' border, even though most seizures of hard narcotics were made at the ports of entry. Inspection manpOWel' has a significllnt impact on the thorough­ness of inspections performed at these locutions,

The only detection devices available to assist inspectors at the ports of entry are TECS data-Treasury's automated intelligence system, which is used by Customs for disseminating.information to inspection and enforcement personnel­and trained detection dogs. The value of TECS dataJor ports-of-entry interdic­tions is limited because it is primarily keyed to vehiclo license numbors,

Detector dogs are effective time-snving dru~'inter~iction aids, However, bord~r officials believe that much of the hllrd narcotICs which comes through the ports IS packaged and inserted into the human body. Detector dogs are mIt used to search people und. inspectors arc reluctllnt to perform intensive personal searches.

Tho'INS Border Pntrolllnd the Customs Patrol have overlappin~ roles for con­trol of illeglll movements across tho land borders between the ports. Poor cOOl'dina­tion and cooperation between tho Customs and INS border patrols, as well as costly ,overlapping fucilities, have contributed to conflicts and tension and pro­duced only marginul results,

Although a Memorandum of Understanding exists between INS and Customs mandating "full cooperation between the two Sel'vices, " this cooperation does not

i in reality, exist, To ilIustrnte, while wniting and watchi[lg with a Customs Patro officer at a border cunyon where a sensol' hit occurred, the supervisory patrol officer told us that a lack of personnel might cuuse them to miss the intruder. Right altel' ho made this statement, an INS Border Patrol car cruised slowly by our position, but no attempt wus mndo to contact it and usk for assistance, Patrol officers could not recall a single exumple of assistailce to one agency by the other on an llS-needed basis. ..

,I

\. I

..

•

125

JOINl' OPEnATIONS BETWEEN Aa~NCIES HA VIi) NOT BEEN EFFECTIVE

The PresidentIal White Paper on D AI ' r program for more effective bordel' :~trol~~e ~ssuelcl ml975 recommended thut' aw enforcement agencies nlong th b ' lie eve ope ancl that the principal

to inclUde joint task force operntio~s orr. er mprove thcil' coordinlltion activities There have been Bevernl of these ,~, t ' ,

cOoperatiVe cool'dlnatec/ efforts amo~ Ith oper~tlOns since 19'15, These were to be in actuality they very rarely turned o~t t~ 'tallous,j,nhW enfol'ccment agencies, but' cool'dlnatlon effOl'ts among a 'I· n way, CI'e llave been minimal 01' no vlll'ied and not ve;'y ImpI'c~SI~VecncTlclsl nvolveel nnd Intcrdiction results hllv.Q been h " '. , • ere ,,"el'e some In' n 'h " Clom SelZUres were disappointing A d' u I . f f I ge 1al'l Unna SelZlll'es but

Opel'lltlon Diamond Back which tO~k~ 18 on 0 a CIV of the operations follows' ~~1 tonaudgrnent Customs r~sources with ~1C::;:e ~f'~~~0~~!n126, 1976,. was initi~ '", 01' 01' Plltrol and the TJ S Con t G I <:;1 'ec era/ agenCles-])EA

bll!ty. In post-OPtll'lltlve ovnluatl~ns th S !l~r( -to mCI'euse intel'diction cnpa! coore/inntlon, coopemtlon anel intel/' C pnrt~IPllfts reported n lack of plunning naUon neVer got out of UlC idea stll elgT~ee, '!J!lc ament·1I1 plnnning and cOOl'di! dBue to confusion us to Who bad the atihor,~;ltcld~on rllll".ng process Was very POOl'

ranch nnd Customs putrol officers ,I, 0 rec, actIOn. Customs Air SUPPOl't No arl'est,s or selzlll'es were mndo. consldelOd the fill' nnd sell opel'ations a failure.

Opernt.lOns Star Trek I and II were' 't' t d and Ari~ona bordel's with Me~ico Stili' !{P tIet b? yllstoms along tho Califol'nia a YOlll' Intel'. DEA wns to pl'o'viele th I:~ 11J' 00 p ace in 1975 lind StUl' ·'l'I'ek II oP~l'ation, . e III 13 IgeMe inrol'mntion needed for the

Sta~ '-';'reJc I, an intensified ail' I I I '. • , interdICt.lOns betwccn POl'ts-of-entr an~, ane ~eu opera,tlOn pl'lmnrlly nhnet! nt' anCd small quantities of vllriollS oth~ d;'~I':1stcd III some lllrge marihuallu seizures

ustoms officials felt thut th . k 'f h tion provided by DEA. A DFlA"g:nl'lil~IS~t t t e ~perution was ,the seant informa~ they were not asked to su~port the Sta T hleIEI Puso Intelligence Cent.el' said onlr two phone CIIIIS fl'om tOI'T' rei' p r I'e l{ opel'L\tion and actual/v rel'civod

St 'T k II • ' ' ', OI'I'IOn11e • "II 1'13 . lll\'olvecl DBA FAA C • ,

Coukst Gum'd, Cooperation wa~ POOl" an~8~~~I~s ~C1:\'tcYi' tho Air FOI'ce, and the wea ness. U.S. Const Guard p ,t" t' 0 III 0 1gence wns still a major There were no joint putrols by C:Isl~~n ,IOn l'thS Cmuch less than in Star Trek I. followed its own patrol pro r d s a~( e, onst Guard. The Coast Guard heil!ures during StUI' Trek 11 i~~'e:~d o::~ U\}d Wd~penden~IY of Customs, Dl'Ug Mad .vory little impact on the constllnt BowIe f I'dS opel'atlOn, but total seizUl'oS

eXlco. 0 nngerous ctrugs eoming from

BORDER NEEDS AN INTEGRATED STRATEGY AND OVERALL CONTROL PLAl\'

Control of the United States M 'b ' that requires a Comprehensive ~oo~~li~Oate~rd~'I:t abcomllPlex and most difficult task enfol'cement c.ommunity.' e 01 Y u segments of the border law

The executive branch of the F diG grated stl'L\tegy or n com reho ,e era .JoVel'nment has not developed an inte­t,he problem nnd establisC I nSlve border con~l'ol plan to consider all aspects cf to, ~ccompllsh with tho Vllrl::'l~~~~rable obJtectives indicating What it intends critICal because of the many agencies w?[heme~1 res,ources. A J:!lan of this type is

Over the past few years th C ,I OVOI uppm,g l'esponslbiJities. issued reports Identifyln rol~le ongJess, the executIVe branch, and GAO }ulVe and containing suggesti~n~ for fS lIln~ng Fecl,eral border enforcement agencies Wbile some recommendations hav,!!Pb~:~~g t~lell' c~lOgerntion and coordination'. have chal1ge~ as a result of these If tmp emen e ~nd outward ,aJ:!pearances problom remalll. Separate agencies with ':f;' thr e~sentl~l charac~erlstlCs cif t.he tho, best means to meet their s '(j ,I eren ~ll'le'?tll:tlOns contmue to identify ~etlVity of the othel's. This hfser!<lc t~l1:glonf' ')Ith IUlllted consideration fOl' the lmes of effort that continue to di/ut b ed ( OVe opment of sepurate but similllr sideratio!l is giyento overall border seecurl[ er coverage and impact •. Little con-

Thero1s obVIOusly II. need for 't t Yd' F border control plan Assi an 111 egl'a 13 'ederal strn.tegy and comprehensive agency would be th~ surc~n~:~toffa~hi~~~r eOthnpI'oplresdl?onsibiJities to a single regard, we believe: mg IS... en mg any decision in this

The cxecutive bmnch should provide th C requests, n.n overview of law enforcement e 1 ongress{fl?ng with its appropriations IncludcQ in this ovorvicw should be an alon~ tbt Dlt~d States-Mexico bOI'{/el'. reque~ts and law enforcement strntegic~n~lths w, l1~h brmgs togethel' the budget agencies. e \ arlous bcil'der law ellforcomen~

,I ,

-'\

r 1~

'(

126

The Office 01 Management p.nd Budget, Office of Drug ALuse Policy, and the principal border agencics should develop an integrated stratgey I\Dd comprehen­sive operational plan lor border control. This plan should consider the various alt~rnatives tc! managing border oJ?erations rangmg from the preaent management structure to smgle-agenoy management.

The President's Reorganization Project has circulated a document containing reorganization options related to border management to various individuals and groups for comment and suggestions. Until agreement is reached on the funda­mental question of purpose or mission at the border, the selection of reorganization options would appear to be premature.

IronJcally, and perhaps predictablYI since the current efforts toward reorganiza­tion were iniUatea the agencies inVOlved in border enforcement have placed an .increased emphasis on voluntary cooperative agreements. SImilar abortive efforts ;in the past do not convince us that any lasting good will result.

Some hnl'd deoislons remain to be made regarding how this country can best -T~spond to its Southwest border problems. The options range fmm the extreme of ,a politically ane! economically infeasible "nerlin-wall" arrangement that would .almost guarantee no illicit intrusion to the loose controls over entry along the ·Canlldian border. Somewhere in between lies an optimum mix of people and resourc~s that should be applied to the border. Development of an overall Federal

: strategy is the first step that needs.to be taken in coming to grips with this major \problem. -STATEMENT OF RICHARD L, WU .. LrAMS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (DnuG ABUSE

POLICY), DOMI~STIC POLICY STAFF

MI', Chairman and members of the committee, it Is a pleaRurc to be here today to di~cuss Border Mnnagement nnd IntCl'dictlon, When the President established the Office of Drug Abuse Policy in March of Inst year, he nslted Dr. Peter Bourne, thc Dirertor, to nssume the lend role in studying the organization and manage­ment of Federn! drug abuse ·pl'evention and control functions. Our report on Dordcr Management represents one of 11. series of policy reviews conducted by the Offico of Drug Abuse Pollc.y of all Federal drug abuse functions,

A mnjor part of the Federal effort to rcduce the availability of illegal drugs is directed towards disrupting the supplv chnin at any point where It may be vulnerable, from overseas sources to domestic Interstate drug trafficking net­works. The United Stntes border provides a unique opportunity In this chnin of drug trnfficking to intcrcept t,he drugs, nrrest the perSOll, nnd perhaps trace the I!ourre or the ultimate destination of the illegal drugs, Our bordel' also serves many other important n~tionnl interestl;! in regulating the international flow of persons, merchandise and commercial carriers.

Our border control is a piecemeal activity with numerous Federal agencies responsible for specific interests and specific functions in the border arens. Several studies of bordel' control have been conducted in recent yeaNl, However, onch of th~se studies focused on a "peclfic function 01' problem rather thnn taking a com­pl'ehensive view of the entira bordel' contl'ol effort. As part of the President's t~oal to achieve greater effectiveness in govel'llment operations, our review was ,dir~cted townrd the brond and long-term goal of improving the overall border -control etfOl,t,

We formed nn intern~ency I'eview team with representation from the ~rlncipal Departments and agenCies involved in control of tlie borders of the Unlten States. The Departments of Justice, Treasury nnd Tmnsportation, the U.S. Customs Service, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the Drug Enforcement Administration provided fll11 time representatives. The Departments ot State and Agriculture, as WCUM Healt~ Education, and Welfare, ancl representatives of the U.S. Coast Guard and the I'ish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior also contributed to the study effort. I will summari2e the major points of the te~\m report.

Our report describes the vastness and distinctness of the border arens and the functions performed by the Fedel'al agencies responsible for border control. In the pnst, we have responded to border management problems in a fragmented manner. When a prohlem arose, new budget resources and manpower were allocated to the agency immediately responsible without deliberate consideraUon of how changes would utTect overall bordor management. The current organizational structure contributes to the problem with personnel from eight agencies representing seven ditTcrent Departments directly Involved in border operations.

•

! 1 I I I

'/ ~ 'I

..

..

,

The bnsic BBsumption of our review is that Improved etTectivencss of bOl'clm' control will enhance all I'elated programs inoluding dl'Ugs, aliens guns etc. Further, au improved management structure could fp.rve ns the foundation for all border control efforts and would be likely to accomplish far more than a self­limited effort directed at Improving control over one particu),l\r commodity.

After an extensiye review of the problems and issues as seen by the agencies respoRsiblelor borl'~r control, the review team conducted a series of field trips to develop firli.thand information on operating practices and problenlo. We also interviewed, field managers and individual officers at all types of bordol' locations,

The report is directed at the two principal funotlons of border oontrol: inspec­tion of persons and goods at ports of entry and patrolling between ports of cub'y. The Agencies with primal',)" rCllponsibility for these two l~ey functlolls are the U.S. Customs Service in the Department of the Treasury and the Immlgl'8tion and Naturalization Service in the Dep.~!,f,ment of Justice, Othcr agencies provide spe­elallzed skills and functions in sUPPlort of their al'ens of !.nt6I'Ust, 'rhe review tcnm Identified two major Isslles: the lack of coordinated border management, Bild sig­nificant overlap Il~ld duplication of etTort in both of the pl'inclpal border control functions. There is an obvious overlap and duplication in pat~olling activities between land ports of entry, with both the Immigl'ation Ser\ ice aad the Customs Servioe responsible for providing a patrol force in theRe areas In support of eacn of their separate missions. There Is also overlap and duplication in inspection responsibilities and management structures at ports of entry, part/culal'ly at airports and larger land ports. In seeking a solution to these problems, s('veral options were considered. .

The first_option was assigning a higher budget priority to selected bonle!' control fURctions. We concluded that simply adding more budget resourGes to the exist­ing agencies was no:: likely to provide any major improvement in the system.

A second option \.',s;ulcl provide single agency management ove.r key functions by eonsolldatmg ttL Inspection function in one agenoy and the partolling fUhCt[on in another. The review team concluded thllt while this would reduce dupUcution, it would not be effective In (llimlnating the potential for conllict bet,ween the ll~enoie8. Further, we noted that, this approaoh had been recommended on pre­VIOUS occasions but hud never successfully reached implementation.

The review tCl\m also considered an option of est!lbllshlng 11 multi-purpose border management agency whioh would Include all of the existing responsibil­ities and resources of the Immigration and Naturnlizatlon Servic(3 and the U.S. Customs Service. By oombining the two prlnoipal border enforcement agencies, a new agency would be oreated to provide tho basic foundation for a full service organization for control over entry of persons nnd goods. It would also allow oonsolidatlon of some support functions and could be handled so as to minimize opposition and turbulence so often assoclnted with reorganization etTorts.

'fhe Review Toam considered a fourth option which would go beyond control over entry to oonsolidate management of '~he major Federal resources involved in the oontrol of the borders and U.S. waters forming the perimeters of the United States. This option would expand the size and responsibilities of the new orga­illation by inoludlng the U.S. Coast Guard. It assumed that the Coast Guard would remain a separate entity within the border manllgement agency to (llCil· itate its transfer for national security purposes during time of war.

As the last step In the process of developing the report, the options werc fur­nished to the Involved agencies for review and commentr and the responses recclved were attached as appendices to the report. After consiaeratlon of these responses the review team maile the following recommendations: •

(1) A multi-purpose border management agency should bo oreated by con­solidating the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the U.S. Customs Service in a new agency (the third option),

(2) An appropriate reorganization plan should be developed by the President's Reorganization Project to include pIli cement of the consolidated border munuge-· ment agency in a Cabinet Department consistent with overall government reor­ganization planning.

(3) A oonsolidation of the agencie~. '.md functions involved should be achieved through nil umhrella management concept with the reorgnnization plan pro­viding a sot of Anitial priorities. However, the new Director should be nllowed flexlblllty in determining the internal structure of the new agency. The following functions st.ould receive high priority for early consolidation:

(a) Primal·r. inspection at all ports; (b) Patrolbl1g of the land borders;

r I}

128

(c) Theoperatio~al support activities, particularly Minmunlcll.tions 'a~(com-puter svstemsjand, . . . .. ,., . . . ;.. . '. ; . (d) The maliag~ment stI:ucture and administrative support actlV,ltles.·. , ,

. The review team suggested that the new Director be given these priorities and be required to report back to ,the Presidentanii to the. Congress at th~' end of

.t1h8 Illpntthshon the accomplishments puring the transit~onperi!>dll:nd his plan for e nex p ase. . ,..' . ..' The President's Reorganization Project hi the Office of Managl)ment and Budg­

et has the ultimate responsibility for developing reorganization plans in Cbnjunc­·tion with its on-going reorganization I3tudy of :the entlrO' Federal Govern'men~. Our report provides OMB with a current evaluation of border control actiVities and recommendations for improvement. The Reorganization, ProjectstaH cur­rently is preparing recommendations for the President regarding border.manage­ment. Our report will also be used in conjunction with the bther on-going drug policy reviews in developing a new,Federal Drug abuse pr~Vention strategy for 1978. '" .'

r wish to thank you for your support of the drug abuse prevention programs and for the opportunity to prC'sent the signlfica.nt features of our Border Manage­ment report. I will be glad to respond to any questions you may have or furnish any additional information .that you desire; . '

"