Hon. JOSEPH R. FARRINGTON,
Delegate from Hawaii,

TERRITORY OF HAWAII, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, Honolulu, January 21, 1948.

Old House Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: We are writing you at this time because of our concern about possibly unnecessary expenditure of Territorial funds due to problems in Federal operations. We hope you may be able to help us.

According to the law, the Federal Government may pay for transportation of indigent aliens to their native countries. This Department frequently has occasion to apply to the Immigration and Naturalization Service for return of alien recipients of public assistance. Those who desire to go back to their countries of origin at Federal expense must understand that this makes them ineligible for reentry without express permission of the Attorney General of the United States.

In submitting an application, the department of public welfare, with the permission of the client, sends to Honolulu representatives of the Immigration and Naturalization Service a detailed summary showing this department's verification of the person's financial need, the circumstances of his entry and residence in the United States, and information concerning his relatives in the Territory and in his native country. The Immigration and Naturalization Service does not believe it necessary to redetermine facts already established by the department of public welfare. Their investigation locally may be a brief one, but due to a backlog of work it may be a matter of months before this brief study is made. As soon as they reach a decision upon an application, they forward it to Washington for review and action. For this process of review, an additional period of 3 to 6 months is considered a normal length of time.

At the present time a much longer period than that may be involved in processing and reviewing an application. Locally, the Immigration and Naturalization Service is understaffed and as yet has been unable to give attention to letters of inquiry submitted by us as long ago as October 1947. With their present serious shortage of personnel they cannot be sure of reaching our inquiries and applications until July. Then, no matter how quickly their investigation may be completed, we must anticipate a long delay in waiting for action of the Washington office of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Pending final action by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Territory is supporting the individual through the Department of Public Welfare at considerable expense. Therefore, it is usually cheaper for the Territory to pay for the person's transportation instead of supporting him here for many months awaiting determination of his eligibility for transportation at Federal expense. We hesitate to pay transportation for these people as soon as they tell us of their desire to return for in so doing we would be overlooking the established resource of return at Federal expense and we would have no guaranty that the individual would not return and again be an expense to us. However, if we do not meet the transportation expenses, greater cost to the Territory is frequently involved because of the great length of time consumed in the local Immigration Office investigation and Washington's study of these applications.

We have discussed this whole matter recently with the office in charge of the local branch of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. They recognize the problem facing the department of public welfare and would like to make their service speedier. However, congressional action in cutting their staff 25 percent below its wartime strength has placed them under a great burden since they are an organization which normally has a great deal more work in peacetime than in wartime. With other more pressing matters such as deportation needing their attention, we realize their inability to give priority to our inquiries and applications. We call this matter to your attention in the hope that you may know of some means of expediting the Washington review of these applications and thus saving money for the Territory.

Respectfully yours,

NEWTON R. HOLCOMB, Director.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1948. CONSIDERATION OF OVERTIME PAY IN THE IMMIGRATION SERVICE

STATEMENT OF DON C. GIBNEY, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION OFFICERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. STEFAN. You have an item to take up with the committee on an appropriation for the Department of Justice. Do you have a statement prepared?

Mr. GIBNEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. STEFAN. Will you file it with the stenographer and summarize it for the committee?

(The statement referred to is as follows:).

STATEMENT OF FRANK C. GIBNEY

Senator Ball tells us that he inserted his proviso in the 1948 appropriation act because he was informed by Mr. Waller, fiscal officer of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, that an inspector who worked on a Sunday would receive 3 days' pay. This could be considered correct prior to the Federal Employees Pay Act of 1945. At that time the per diem pay of a Federal employee was computed at one three-hundred-and-sixtieth of his annual salary, even though an employee worked 48 hours per week or 6 days of 8 hours each. From the time of the passage of the act of March 2, 1931, until the enactment of the Federal Employees Pay Act of 1945, an immigrant inspector who was engaged in the inspection of passengers arriving in the United States would receive two additional days' pay, which money would be paid by the transportation company involved. At no time did an inspector ever receive three additional days' pay.

The act of 1945 provides for a 5-day 40-hour week. Where an inspector receives 2 days' pay for Sunday inspection work, he is being paid for working one additional day. In other words he is receiving double time for working overtime on Sunday, which is the same pay that is ordinarily paid for overtime work on Sunday in private industry.

When an inspector is called in to work on Sunday at the request of a transportation company, the Government avails themselves of his services at no Government expense. The overtime rates provided for in the Federal Employees Pay Act of 1945, while they are commonly referred to as being time-and-one-half rates, are in the case of most inspectors, just about straight time. These are rates which have never been approved by the National Labor Relations Board in any labor dispute in private industry.

We request that the provision in question be stricken out because its passage will tend to lower the morale of inspectors who are engaged in the enforcement of immigration laws. The lowering of the morale of this body of inspectors would mean that they could not perform their duties as efficiently as they otherwise would.

At a period such as this, it is imperative that the appropriation provide for a sufficient force of inspectors, working under satisfactory conditions, so that the laws enacted by Congress be enforced in the manner in which they intended them to be.

UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION-NATURALIZATION OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION

NEW YORK 23, N. Y.

MEMORANDUM CONCERNING THE PROVISO IN THE 1949 APPROPRIATION BILL FOR THE DEPARTMENTS OF STATE, JUSTICE, COMMERCE, AND THE JUDICIARY FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1949 WHICH LIMITS OVERTIME COMPENSATION FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE TO THE RATES PROVIDED FOR IN THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES PAY ACT OF 1945

In the proposed appropriation for the above-named departments, there appears the following proviso:

"Provided, That none of the funds available for salaries of the employees of the Immigration and Naturalization Service shall be used to pay compensation for

overtime services other than as provided in the Federal Employees Pay Act of 1945."

A similar provision was included in the appropriation for the fiscal year 1948. On March 2, 1931, there came into being an act of Congress (8 U. S. C., sec. 109 (a), (b), and (c)) which provided that employees of the Immigration Service should be paid overtime compensation for the inspection of arriving passengers between the hours of 5 p. m. and 8 a. m. and on Sundays and holidays. It stipulated that overtime compensation between the hours of 5 p. m. and 8 a. m. could only be earned after an employee had completed his regular 8-hour tour of duty. This overtime was not to be paid by the Government but by the transportation carrier involved and who requested this service at unusual hours.

On May 6, 1946, the Court of Claims of the United States in decisions Nos. 46338 and 46356 decided in effect that under the act of March 2, 1931, if no transportation company was liable for this overtime compensation, then the liability was that of the Government. The Comptroller General issued a ruling in accordance with this decision.

As a result of the decision of the Court of Claims and the resultant decision of the Comptroller General, the Government became liable for approximately 20 percent of the overtime compensation involved and approximately 80 percent was paid by transportation companies and was not Government-appropriated money,

When the 1948 appropriation bill was being considered in the Senate, Senator Ball inserted a proviso similar to the one in the appropriation bill now under consideration. This proviso was approved by the conference committee of both Houses and is now part of our present appropriation. In submitting his proviso, Senator Ball stated (Congressional Record, p. 8057, June 30, 1947) that he was submitting this amendment because immigrant inspectors were paid 3 days' pay for 1 day's work. This statement is erroneous and is based on information supplied to Senator Ball which is absolutely untrue.

When the Congress was considering the Federal Employees Pay Act of 1945, it saw fit to protect the act of March 2, 1931. Section 601 of that act reads as follows:

"The provisions of this Act shall not operate to prevent payment for overtime services or extra pay for Sunday or holiday work in accordance with any of the following statutes: Act of March 2, 1931, as amended (8 U. S.

C., sec. 109 (a), (b), and (c). We contend, therefore, that the proposed provision of the appropriation bill for the fiscal year 1949 should be stricken out since approximately 80 percent of this sum will be paid by transportation companies who requested this service, and would involve no Government money.

Mr. ROONEY. Let me ask you a question. If the ship was docking on Sunday and the steamship company wanted to unload passengers and have inspectors there, the steamship company paid them?

Mr. GIBNEY. They were there solely for their convenience so you might mathematically say he was paid 1 day's pay by the Government for Sunday which he did not work. So if you follow that, then, he did receive two additional days' pay from the transportation comHe would have gotten one of those day's pay for not working so he really got two additional days' pay.

pany.

Mr. ROONEY. You are an immigrant inspector; are you not?
Mr. GIBNEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROONEY. How does all this affect the inspectors at the Canadian border and the Mexican border? How does it affect immigrant inspectors who work on planes and on trains? Are they paid by the transportation companies involved just as the seaboard inspector is paid by the steamship company?

Mr. HORAN. And inland ports.

Mr. GIBNEY. At inland ports, the plane company would be involved. Mr. HORAN. I mean ports on a road.

Mr. GIBNEY. Free roads without toll bridges?

Mr. HORAN. They call them ports.

Mr. GIBNEY. Yes; that is right.

Mr. STEFAN. Are there any other questions?

Mr. CLEVENGER. Mr. Chairman, this is the matter which I took up for Mr. Jensen, too. Exactly the same thing. I spoke to you several days ago and suggested that we bring this out.

Mr. STEFAN. We have some other information from the Department of Justice on that and we will go into that when we reach that point.

Mr. HORAN. Mr. Chairman, I have discussed this with these officers at several of the inland ports, small ones, where the traffic is light but someone has to be there. It is a very troublesome item because there you do not have any revenues to support that port. All you have is a screening position maintained by Customs and Immigration and they complained to me that if they properly served the people there, who were in small numbers, they would maintain an open port for much longer than they do and the burden comes to us because if we were to do that under our 40-hour week, we are going to have to appropriate enormously large funds and with no visible

revenue.

Has your association gone fully into this possible alternative that might be entertained?

Mr. GIBNEY. The only alternative would be to put on more inspectors, but that would be much more expensive for the Government. By paying overtime, the Government actually saves money because if the workweek of Federal employees is 40 hours, then it should be maintained at 40 hours and if he is asked to work over that, he should naturally receive some overtime compensation. The only different way we can see is to hire more inspectors which would mean having three shifts a day and that would be tremendously expensive.

Mr. HORAN. Has the possible alternative of combining the services ever been explored?

Mr. GIBNEY. Not by us, no, sir.

Mr. HORAN. Where your traffic is light, Mr. Chairman, you have to maintain at least two men on duty all the time which is quite a problem and yet you have to maintain posts like that north of Eureka, Mont., which has at present comparatively light traffic; more is expected in the future as it is the main stem between the national parks on which the summer traffic is heavy at some periods of the year.

Mr. STEFAN. If there are no further questions, Mr. Gibney, we are very happy to have you here at the request of Mr. Rooney and glad to get your information and statement.

Thank you.

I would like to announce that this concludes all of the hearings on the appropriations for the Departments of State and of Commerce, the Department of Justice and the Federal Judiciary for fiscal year 1942.

Thank you very much.