Space Task Group charged with developing strategy alternatives for a balanced U.S. space program in the coming years.

As a result of this work, basic policy issues in the United States space effort have been resolved, and the necessary interagency relationships have been established. I have therefore concluded, with the Vice President's concurrence, that the Council can be discontinued. Needed policy coordination can now be achieved through the resources of the executive departments and agencies, such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, augmented by some of the former Council staff. Accordingly, my reorganization plan proposes the abolition of the National Aeronautics and Space Council.

A NEW APPROACH TO EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS The organization within the Executive Office of the President which has been known in recent years as the Office of Emergency Preparedness dates back, through its numerous predecessor agencies, more than 20 years. It has performed valuable functions in developing plans for emergency preparedness, in administering Federal disaster relief, and in overseeing and assisting the agencies in this

area.

OEP's work as a coordinating and supervisory authority in this field has in fact been so effective-particularly under the leadership of General George A. Lincoln, its director for the past four years, who retired earlier this month after an exceptional military and public service career—that the line departments and agencies which in the past have shared in the performance of the various preparedness functions now possess the capability to assume full responsibility for those functions. In the interest of efficiency and economy, we can now further streamline the Executive Office of the President by formally relocating those responsibilities and closing the Office of Emergency Preparedness.

I propose to accomplish this reform in two steps. First, Reorganization Plan No. 1 would transfer to the President all functions previously vested by law in the Office or its Director, except the Director's role as a member of the National Security Council, which would be abolished; and it would abolish the Office of Emergency Preparedness.

The functions to be transferred to the President from OEP are largely incidental to emergency authorities already vested in him. They include functions under the Disaster Relief Act of 1970; the function of determining whether a major disaster has occurred within the meaning of (1) Section 7 of the Act of September 30, 1950, as amended, 20 U.S.C. 241-1, or (2) Section 762 (a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as added by Section 161(a) of the Education Amendments of 1972, Public Law 92-318, 86 Stat. 288 at 299 (relating to the furnishing by the Commissioner of Education of disaster relief assistance for educational purposes); and functions under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1862), with respect to the conduct of investigations to determine the effects on national security of the importation of certain articles.

The Civil Defense Advisory Council within OEP would also be abolished by this plan, as changes in domestic and international conditions since its establishment in 1950 have now obivated the need for a standing council of this type. Should advice of the kind the Council has provided be required again in the future, State and local officials and experts in the field can be consulted on an ad hoc basis.

Second, as soon as the plan became effective, I would delegate OEP's former functions as follows:

All OEP responsibilities having to do with preparedness for and relief of civil emergencies and disasters would be transferred to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This would provide greater field capabilities for coordination of Federal disaster assistance with that provided by States and local communities, and would be in keeping with the objective of creating a broad, new Department of Community Development.

OEP's responsibilities for measures to ensure the continuity of civil government operations in the event of major military attack would be reassigned to the General Services Administration, as would responsibility for

resource mobilization including the management of national security stockpiles, with policy guidance in both cases to be provided by the National Security Council, and with economic considerations relating to changes in stockpile levels to be coordinated by the Council on Economic Policy.

Investigations of imports which might threaten the national security-assigned to OEP by Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962—would be reassigned to the Treasury Department, whose other trade studies give it a readymade capability in this field; the National Security Council would maintain its supervisory role over strategic imports.

Those disaster relief authorities which have been reserved to the President in the past, such as the authority to declare major disasters, will continue to be exercised by him under these new arrangements. In emergency situations calling for rapid interagency coordination, the Federal response will be coordinated by the Executive Office of the President under the general supervision of the Assistant to the President in charge of executive management.

The Oil Policy Committee will continue to function as in the past, unaffected by this reorganization, except that I will designate the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury as chairman in place of the Director of OEP. The committee will operate under the general supervision of the Assistant to the President in charge of economic affairs.

DECLARATIONS

After investigation, I have found that each action included in the accompanying plan is necessary to accomplish one or more of the purposes set forth in Section 901 (a) of title 5 of the United States Code. In particular, the plan is responsive to the intention of the Congress as expressed in Section 901(a)(1), “to promote better execution of the laws, more effective management of the executive branch and of its agencies and functions, and expeditious administration of the public business;" and in Section 901(a)(3), "to increase the efficiency of the operations of the Government to the fullest extent practicable;" and in Section 901 (a) (5), “to reduce the number of agencies by consolidating those having similar functions under a single head, and to abolish such agencies or functions as may not be necessary for the efficient conduct of the Government."

While it is not practicable to specify all of the expenditure reductions and other economies which will result from the actions proposed, personnel and budget savings from abolition of the National Aeronautics and Space Council and the Office of Science and Technology alone will exceed $2 million annually, and additional savings should result from a reduction of Executive Pay Schedule positions now associated with other transferred and delegated functions.

The plan has as its one logically consistent subject matter the streamlining of the Executive Office of the President and the disposition of major responsibilities currently conducted in the Executive Office of the President, which can better be performed elsewhere or abolished.

The functions which would be abolished by this plan, and the statutory authorities for each, are:

(1) the functions of the Director of the Office of Emergency Preparedness with respect to being a member of the National Security Council (Sec. 101, National Security Act of 1947, as amended, 50 U.S.C. 402; and Sec. 4, Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1958);

(2) the functions of the Civil Defense Advisory Council (Sec. 102(a) Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950; 50 U.S.C. App. 2272(a)); and

(3) the functions of the National Aeronautics and Space Council (Sec. 201, National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958; 42 U.S.C. 2471).

The proposed reorganization is a necessary part of the restructuring of the Executive Office of the President. It would provide through the Director of the National Science Foundation a strong focus for Federal efforts to encourage the development and application of science and technology to meet national needs. It would mean better preparedness for and swifter response to civil emergencies, and more reliable precautions against threats to the national security. The leaner and less diffuse Presi

LAW ENFORCEMENT IN ILLICIT DRUG ACTIVITIES SECTION 1. TRANSFERS TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL There are hereby transferred from the Secretary of the Treasury, the Department of the Treasury, and any other officer or any agency of the Department of the Treasury, to the Attorney General all intelligence, investigative, and law enforcement functions, vested by law in the Secretary, the Department, officers, or agencies which relate to the suppression of illicit traffic in narcotics, dangerous drugs, or marihuana, except that the Secretary shall retain, and continue to perform, those functions, to the extent that they relate to searches and seizures of illicit narcotics, dangerous drugs, or marihuana or to the apprehension or detention of persons in connection therewith, at regular inspection locations at ports of entry or anywhere along the land or water borders of the United States: Provided, that any illicit narcotics, dangerous drugs, marihuana, or related evidence seized, and any person apprehended or detained by the Secretary or any officer of the Department of the Treasury, pursuant to the authority retained in them by virtue of this section, shall be turned over forthwith to the jurisdiction of the Attorney General; Provided further, that nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting in any way any authority vested by law in the Secretary of the Treasury, the Department of the Treasury, or any other officer or any agency of that Department on the effective date of this Plan with respect to contraband other than illicit narcotics. dangerous drugs, and marihuana: and Provided further, that nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting in any way any authority the Attorney General, the Department of Justice, or any other officer or any agency of that Department may otherwise have to make investigations or engage in law enforcement activities, including activities relating to the suppression of illicit traffic in narcotics, dangerous drugs, and marihuana, at ports of entry or along the land and water borders of the United States. SEC. 2. TRANSFERS TO THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY [Repealed. Pub. L. 93–253, § 1(a)(1), (b), Mar. 16, 1974, 88 Stat. 50, eff. July 1, 1973. Section had provided for transfer to Secretary of Treasury of functions vested in Attorney General, Department of Justice, or any other officer of such Department respecting inspection at ports of entry of persons, and documents of persons, entering or leaving the United States.]

SEC. 3. ABOLITION

The Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, including the Office of Director thereof, is hereby abolished, and section 3(a) of Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1968 is hereby repealed. The Attorney General shall make such provision as he may deem necessary with respect to terminating those affairs of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs not otherwise provided for in the Reorganization Plan.

SEC. 4. DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION There is established in the Department of Justice an agency which shall be known as the Drug Enforcement Administration, hereinafter referred to as "the Administration."

SEC. 5. OFFICERS OF THE ADMINISTRATION (a) There shall be at the head of the Administration the Administrator of Drug Enforcement, hereinafter re

ferred to as "the Administrator." The Administrator shall be appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and shall receive compensation at the rate now or hereafter prescribed by law for positions of level III of the Executive Schedule Pay Rates (5 U.S.C. 5314). He shall perform such functions as the Attorney General shall from time to time direct.

(b) There shall be in the Administration a Deputy Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, hereinafter referred to as "the Deputy Administrator," who shall be appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall perform such functions as the Attorney General may from time to time direct, and shall received compensation at the rate now or hereafter prescribed by law for positions of level V of the Executive Schedule Pay Rates (5 U.S.C. 5316).

(c) The Deputy Administrator or such other official of the Department of Justice as the Attorney General shall from time to time designate shall act as Administrator during the absence or disability of the Administrator or in the event of a vacancy in the office of Administrator. SEC. 6. PERFORMANCE of TRANSFERRED FUNCTIONS The Attorney General may from time to time make such provisions as he shall deem appropriate authorizing the performance of any of the functions transferred to him by the provisions of this Reorganization Plan by any officer, employee, or agency of the Department of Justice.

[Section, formerly subsec. (a), so designated and former subsec. (b) providing for performance of functions transferred to Secretary of Treasury by any officer, employee, or agency of Treasury Department, repealed by Pub. L. 93-253, § 1(a)(2), (b), Mar. 16, 1974, 88 Stat. 50, eff. July 1, 1973.]

SEC. 7. COORDINATION

The Attorney General, acting through the Administrator and such other officials of the Department of Justice as he may designate, shall provide for the coordination of all drug law enforcement functions vested in the Attorney General so as to assure maximum cooperation between and among the Administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and other units of the Department involved in the performance of these and related functions. SEC. 8. INCIDENTAL TRANSFERS

(a) So much of the personnel, property, records, and unexpended balances of appropriations, allocations, and other funds employed, used, held, available or to be made available in connection with the functions transferred to the Attorney General and to the Secretary of the Treasury by this Reorganization Plan as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall determine shall be transferred to the Department of Justice and to the Department of the Treasury, respectively, at such time or times as the Director shall direct.

(b) Such further measures and dispositions as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall deem to be necessary in order to effectuate transfers referred to in subsection (a) of this section shall be carried out in such manner as he shall direct and by such Federal agencies as he shall designate.

SEC. 9. INTERIM OFFICERS

(a) The President may authorize any person who, immediately prior to the effective date of this Reorganization Plan, held a position in the Executive Branch of the Government to act as Administrator until the office of Administrator is for the first time filled pursuant to the provisions of this Reorganization Plan or by recess appointment as the case may be.

(b) The President may similarly authorize any such person to act as Deputy Administrator.

(c) The President may authorize any person who serves in an acting capacity under the foregoing provisions of this section to receive the compensation attached to the office in respect to which he so serves. Such compensation, if authorized, shall be in lieu of, but not in addition to, other compensation from the United States to which such person may be entitled.

SEC. 10. EFFECTIVE DATE

The provisions of this Reorganization Plan shall take effect as provided by section 906(a) of title 5 of the

United States Code or on July 1, 1973, whichever is later.

MESSAGE OF THE PRESIDENT

To the Congress of the United States:

Drug abuse is one of the most vicious and corrosive forces attacking the foundations of American society today. It is a major cause of crime and a merciless destroyer of human lives. We must fight it with all of the resources at our command.

This Administration has declared all-out, global war on the drug menace. As I reported to the Congress earlier this month in my State of the Union message, there is evidence of significant progress on a number of fronts in that war.

Both the rate of new addiction to heroin and the number of narcotic-related deaths showed an encouraging downturn last year. More drug addicts and abusers are in treatment and rehabilitation programs than ever before.

Progress in pinching off the supply of illicit drugs was evident in last year's stepped-up volume of drug seizures worldwide which more than doubled in 1972 over the 1971 level.

Arrests of traffickers have risen by more than one-third since 1971. Prompt Congressional action on my proposal for mandatory minimum sentences for pushers of hard drugs will help ensure that convictions stemming from such arrests lead to actual imprisonment of the guilty.

Notwithstanding these gains, much more must be done. The resiliance of the international drug trade remains grimly impressive-current estimates suggest that we still intercept only a small fraction of all the heroin and cocaine entering this country. Local police still find that more than one of every three suspects arrested for street crimes is a narcotic abuser or addict. And the total number of Americans addicted to narcotics, suffering terribly themselves and inflicting their suffering on countless others, still stands in the hundreds of thousands.

A UNIFIED COMMAND FOR DRUG ENFORCEMENT Seeking ways to intensify our counter-offensive against this menace, I am asking the Congress today to join with this Administration in strengthening and streamlining the Federal drug law enforcement effort.

Funding for this effort has increased sevenfold during the past five years, from $36 million in fiscal year 1969 to $257 million in fiscal year 1974-more money is not the most pressing enforcement need at present. Nor is there a primary need for more manpower working on the problem, over 2100 new agents having already been added to the Federal drug enforcement agencies under this Administration, an increase of more than 250 percent over the 1969 level.

The enforcement work could benefit significantly, however, from consolidation of our anti-drug forces under a single unified command. Right now the Federal Government is fighting the war on drug abuse under a distinct handicap, for its efforts are those of a loosely confederated alliance facing a resourceful, elusive, worldwide enemy. Admiral Mahan, the master naval strategist, described this handicap precisely when he wrote that "Granting the same aggregate of force, it is never as great in two hands as in one, because it is not perfectly concentrated."

More specifically, the drug law enforcement activities of the United States now are not merely in two hands but in half a dozen. Within the Department of Justice, with no overall direction below the level of the Attorney General, these fragmented forces include the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, the Office for Drug Abuse Law Enforcement, the Office of National Narcotics Intelligence, and certain activities of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. The Treasury Department is also heavily engaged in enforcement work through the Bureau of Customs.

This aggregation of Federal activities has grown up rapidly over the past few years in response to the urgent need for stronger anti-drug measures. It has enabled us to make a very encouraging beginning in the accelerated drug enforcement drive of this Administration.

But it also has serious operational and organizational shortcomings. Certainly the cold-blooded underworld networks that funnel narcotics from suppliers all over the world into the veins of American drug victims are no

respecters of the bureaucratic dividing lines that now complicate our anti-drug efforts. On the contrary, these modern-day slave traders can derive only advantage from the limitations of the existing organizational patchwork. Experience has now given us a good basis for correcting those limitations, and it is time to do so.

I therefore propose creation of a single, comprehensive Federal agency within the Department of Justice to lead the war against illicit drug traffic.

Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1973, which I am transmitting to the Congress with this message, would establish such an agency, to be called the Drug Enforcement Administration. It would be headed by an Administrator reporting directly to the Attorney General.

The Drug Enforcement Administration would carry out the following anti-drug functions, and would absorb the associated manpower and budgets:

-All functions of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (which would be abolished as a separate entity by the reorganization plan);

-Those functions of the Bureau of Customs pertaining to drug investigations and intelligence (to be transferred from the Treasury Department to the Attorney General by the reorganization plan); -All functions of the Office for Drug Abuse Law Enforcement; and

-All functions of the Office of National Narcotics Intelligence.

Merger of the latter two organizations into the new agency would be effected by an executive order dissolving them and transferring their functions, to take effect upon approval of Reorganization Plan No. 2 by the Congress. Drug law enforcement research currently funded by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration and other agencies would also be transferred to the new agency by executive action.

The major responsibilities of the Drug Enforcement Administration would thus include:

-development of overall Federal drug law enforcement strategy, programs, planning, and evaluation; -full investigation and preparation for prosecution of suspects for violations under all Federal drug trafficking laws:

-full investigation and preparation for prosecution of suspects connected with illicit drugs seized at U.S. ports-of-entry and international borders; -conduct of all relations with drug law enforcement officials of foreign governments, under the policy guidance of the Cabinet Committee on International Narcotics Control;

-full coordination and cooperation with State and local law enforcement officials on joint drug enforcement efforts; and

-regulation of the legal manufacture of drugs and other controlled substances under Federal regulations.

The Attorney General, working closely with the Administrator of this new agency, would have authority to make needed program adjustments. He would take steps within the Department of Justice to ensure that high priority emphasis is placed on the prosecution and sentencing of drug traffickers following their apprehension by the enforcement organization. He would also have the authority and responsibility for securing the fullest possible cooperation-particularly with respect to collection of drug intelligence-from all Federal departments and agencies which can contribute to the anti-drug work, including the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

My proposals would make possible a more effective anti-drug role for the FBI, especially in dealing with the relationship between drug trafficking and organized crime. I intend to see that the resources of the FBI are fully committed to assist in supporting the new Drug Enforcement Administration.

The consolidation effected under Reorganization Plan No. 2 would reinforce the basic law enforcement and criminal justice mission of the Department of Justice. With worldwide drug law enforcement responsibilities no longer divided among several organizations in two different Cabinet departments, more complete and cumulative drug law enforcement intelligence could be compiled. Patterns of international and domestic illicit drug

production, distribution, and sale could be more directly compared and interpreted. Case-by-case drug law enforcement activities could be more comprehensively linked, cross-referenced, and coordinated into a single, organic enforcement operation. In short, drug law enforcement officers would be able to spend more time going after the traffickers and less time coordinating with one another.

Such progress could be especially helpful on the international front. Narcotics control action plans, developed under the leadership of the Cabinet Committee on International Narcotics Control, are now being carried out by U.S. officials in cooperation with host governments in 59 countries around the world. This wide-ranging effort to cut off drug supplies before they ever reach U.S. borders or streets is just now beginning to bear fruit. We can enhance its effectiveness, with little disruption of ongoing enforcement activities, by merging both the highly effective narcotics force of overseas Customs agents and the rapidly developing international activities of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs into the Drug Enforcement Administration. The new agency would work closely with the Cabinet Committee under the active leadership of the U.S. Ambassador in each country where anti-drug programs are underway.

Two years ago, when I established the Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention within the Executive Office of the President, we gained an organization with the necessary resources, breadth, and leadership capacity to begin dealing decisively with the "demand" side of the drug abuse problem-treatment and rehabilitation for those who have been drug victims, and preventive programs for potential drug abusers. This year, by permitting my reorganization proposals to take effect, the Congress can help provide a similar capability on the "supply" side. The proposed Drug Enforcement Administration, working as a team with the Special Action Office, would arm Americans with a potent one-two punch to help us fight back against the deadly menace of drug abuse. I ask full Congressional cooperation in its establishment.

IMPROVING PORT-OF-ENTRY INSPECTIONS

No heroin or cocaine is produced within the United States; domestic availability of these substances results solely from their illegal importation. The careful and complete inspection of all persons and goods coming into the United States is therefore an integral part of effective Federal drug law enforcement.

At the present time, however, Federal responsibility for conducting port-of-entry inspections is awkwardly divided among several Cabinet departments. The principal agencies involved are the Treasury Department's Bureau of Customs, which inspects goods, and the Justice Department's Immigration and Naturalization Service, which inspects persons and their papers. The two utilize separate inspection procedures, hold differing views of inspection priorities, and employ dissimilar personnel management practices.

To reduce the possibility that illicit drugs will escape detection at ports-of-entry because of divided responsibility, and to enhance the effectiveness of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the reorganization plan which I am proposing today would transfer to the Secretary of the Treasury all functions currently vested in Justice Department officials to inspect persons, or the documents of persons.

When the plan takes effect, it is my intention to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to use the resources so transferred-including some 1,000 employees of the Immigration and Naturalization Service-to augment the staff and budget of the Bureau of Customs. The Bureau's primary responsibilities would then include: -inspection of all persons and goods entering the United States;

-valuation of goods being imported, and assessment of appropriate tariff duties;

-interception of contraband being smuggled into the United States;

-enforcement of U.S. laws governing the international movement of goods, except the investigation of contraband drugs and narcotics; and -turning over the investigation responsibility for all drug law enforcement cases to the Department of Justice.

The reorganization would thus group most port-ofentry inspection functions in a single Cabinet department. It would reduce the need for much day-to-day interdepartmental coordination, allow more efficient staffing at some field locations, and remove the basis for damaging inter-agency rivalries. It would also give the Secretary of the Treasury the authority and flexibility to meet changing requirements in inspecting the international flow of people and goods. An important byproduct of the change would be more convenient service for travellers entering and leaving the country.

For these reasons, I am convinced that inspection activities at U.S. ports-of-entry can more effectively support our drug law enforcement efforts if concentrated in a single agency. The processing of persons at ports-of-entry is too closely interrelated with the inspection of goods to remain organizationally separated from it any longer. Both types of inspections have numerous objectives besides drug law enforcement, so it is logical to vest them in the Treasury Department, which has long had the principal responsibility for port-of-entry inspection of goods, including goods being transported in connection with persons. As long as the inspections are conducted with full awareness of related drug concerns it is neither necessary nor desirable that they be made a responsibility of the primary drug enforcement organization.

DECLARATIONS

After investigation, I have found that each action included in Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1973 is necessary to accomplish one or more of the purposes set forth in Section 901(a) of Title 5 of the United States Code. In particular, the plan is responsive to the intention of the Congress as expressed in Section 901(a)(1): "to promote better execution of the laws, more effective management of the executive branch and of its agencies and functions, and expeditious administration of the public business;" Section 901(a)(3): “to increase the efficiency of the operations of the Government to the fullest extent practicable;" Section 901(a)(5): "to reduce the number of agencies by consolidating those having similar functions under a single head, and to abolish such agencies or functions as may not be necessary for the efficient conduct of the Government;" and Section 901(a)(6): “to eliminate overlapping and duplication of effort."

As required by law, the plan has one logically consistent subject matter: consolidation of Federal drug law enforcement activities in a manner designed to increase their effectiveness.

The plan would establish in the Department of Justice a new Administration designated as the Drug Enforcement Administration. The reorganizations provided for in the plan make necessary the appointment and compensation of new officers as specified in Section 5 of the plan. The rates of compensation fixed for these officers would be comparable to those fixed for officers in the executive branch who have similar responsibilities.

While it is not practicable to specify all of the expend!ture reductions and other economies which may result from the actions proposed, some savings may be anticipated in administrative costs now associated with the functions being transferred and consolidated.

The proposed reorganization is a necessary step in upgrading the effectiveness of our Nation's drug law enforcement effort. Both of the proposed changes would build on the strengths of established agencies, yielding maximum gains in the battle against drug abuse with minimum loss of time and momentum in the transition.

I am confident that this reorganization plan would significantly increase the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the Federal Government. I urge the Congress to allow it to become effective.

THE WHITE HOUSE, March 28, 1973

RICHARD NION.

Sec.

1972-Pub. L. 92-310, title II, § 203 (3), (4), June 6, 1972, 86 Stat. 202, substituted "Surety Bonds" for "Official and Penal Bonds" in the title heading, and struck out items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 14 from the analysis of sections.

S$1 to 5. Repealed. Pub. L. 92-310, title II, § 203(1), June 6, 1972, 86 Stat. 202.

Section 1, acts July 30, 1947, ch. 390, 61 Stat. 646; Oct. 31, 1951, ch. 655, § 13, 65 Stat. 715, related to custody of official bonds.

Section 2, act July 30, 1947, ch. 390, 61 Stat. 647, directed the examination at least once every two years of the sufficiency of sureties on official bonds.

Section 3, acts July 30, 1947, ch. 390, 61 Stat. 647; Sept. 3, 1954, ch. 1263, § 15, 68 Stat. 1231, related to the renewal of bonds and the continuance of liability.

Section 4, act July 30, 1947, ch. 390, 61 Stat. 647, related to notice of delinquency of principal. The provisions of the section were reenacted by section 260 of Pub. L. 92– 310, which is classified to section 497a of Title 31, Money and Finance.

Section 5, act July 30, 1947, ch. 390, 61 Stat. 648, related to limitation of actions against sureties.

§ 6. Surety companies as sureties.

Whenever any recognizance, stipulation, bond, or undertaking conditioned for the faithful performance of any duty, or for doing or refraining from doing anything in such recognizance, stipulation, bond, or undertaking specified, is by the laws of the United States required or permitted to be given with one surety or with two or more sureties, the execution of the same or the guaranteeing of the performance of the condition thereof shall be sufficient when

Page 163

executed or guaranteed solely by a corporation incorporated under the laws of the United States or of any State having power to guarantee the fidelity of persons holding positions of public or private trust, and to execute and guarantee bonds and undertakings in judicial proceedings. Such recognizance, stipulation, bond, or undertaking shall be approved by the head of department, court, judge, officer, board, or body executive, legislative, or judicial required to approve or accept the same. No officer or person having the approval of any bond shall require that such bond shall be furnished by a guaranty company or by any particular guaranty company. (As amended June 6, 1972, Pub. L. 92-310, title II, § 203 (2), 86 Stat. 202.)

AMENDMENTS

1972-Pub. L. 92-310 eliminated provisions which excepted bonds obtained under section 14 of this title. SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS

This section is referred to in title 29 sections 1112, 1363.

§ 7. Same; appointment of agents; service of process.

SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS This section is referred to in title 29 sections 1112, 1363.

§ 8. Same; deposit of copy of charter.

SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS This section is referred to in title 29 sections 1112, 1363. SECTION REFERRED TO IN D.C. CODE This section is referred to in section 1-244 of the District of Columbia Code.

§§ 9 to 13.

SECTIONS REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS These sections are referred to in title 29 sections 1112, 1363.

§ 14. Repealed. Pub. L. 92-310, title II, § 203(1), June 6, 1972, 86 Stat. 202.

Section, acts July 30, 1947, ch. 390, 61 Stat. 650; Aug. 9, 1955, ch. 683, § 1, 69 Stat. 618, related to the purchase of bonds to cover officers and employees of the Federal Government.