The amendment would authorize these security officers to

arrest without warrant and deliver into custody any person violating 18 U.S.C. 111 or 112 in their presence, or if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such a violation. Now, the arrest by the officers of people who are committing crimes in their presence, I suppose, is pretty good common law, without a warrant, but "if they have reasonable grounds to believe," where does that come in?

Mr. KEARNEY. That language, Mr. Chairman, is precisely the same language which is used to authorize the other Federal law enforcement agents such as the special agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigations, the U.S. marshals, and so forth, to make arrests on reasonable grounds of belief that a felony is about to be committed. Mr. WILLIS. Any felony?

Mr. KEARNEY. Yes, sir. I think I have the language right here. Title 18, section 3052, authorizes the agents of the Federal Bureau— to make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such a felony.

Now, that is not extremely broad language. Now, the languageMr. LIBONATI. May I ask this question.

I just want you to classify the present powers. So that we get these two reconciled, the present powers vested in the security officer are the same in nature as those of a peace officer or a marshal of the court who serves process, in other words, he can carry a pistol, but he can only use it in self-defense, and he can only use it if the provocation is such that whoever his duties are to protect is threatened, in other words, the security of the person involved.

Now, what you are seeking to do is to limit to a certain number of specific officers of the Federal family the right to carry arms for enforcement purposes if necessary rather than just to wait for something to happen before they can use the weapons that are given to them for the protection of the individual-in other words, you are endeavoring to change the nature of his powers to conform with the effectiveness of his duties.

And I don't see anything wrong in that. I don't see anything wrong in that, for this reason, that in the nature of his responsibility he must act upon representations and maybe information. And, therefore, in his position he is handicapped under the present law, because there must be some overlap before he can enforce the law or proceed in his duties or responsibility.

Mr. KEARNEY. That is a very good statement of the problems, sir. Mr. LIBONATI. I think that in those instances where it is limited to 110 security officers, if there are any others, under specificity of orders that may be given, there would be special orders on special assignments for a greater number of persons that would be limited to those public servants on that special duty; am I correct in that?

Mr. KEARNEY. That is correct, sir. And the special duty is limited, under the way we have proposed this amendment to the law, to those agents who are assigned while a foreign head of state such as President de Gaulle, for example, is in the United States, assigned to guard President de Gaulle. And we want to have them in a

position so that if it looks as if somebody is going to make an attack on President de Gaulle they can move in and arrest him before he has made the attack. That is really what we are concerned with.

Mr. WILLIS. One final question. I take it that the proposal to give this power of arrest would extend to the arrest of people only in connection with the security officers' assigned duties to protect these foreign dignitaries, the Secretary of State, and so on?

Mr. KEARNEY. That is right, Mr. Chairman, that is the complete limit of the authority.

Mr. WILLIS. And you say that under present law FBI agents have comparable powers of arrest without warrant, and on reasonable grounds of belief extending to all Federal offenses?

Mr. KEARNEY. All felonies; yes, sir.

Mr. WILLIS. Felonies?

Mr. KEARNEY. All felonies.

Mr. WILLIS. Is this a felony, or would it be made a felony? Is this bill dealing with felonies, assault?

Mr. KEARNEY. Yes, section 112 in its present form is a felony section.

Mr. WILLIS. Because of the penalty imposed?

Mr. KEARNEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WILLIS. I can't see making it a felony to strike someone without defining the word "strike." Of course, that is present law, isn't it?

Mr. KEARNEY. That is the present law. As a matter of fact, it is in the present law to strike an ambassador, and the people we are interested in are much higher ranking than ambassadors.

Mr. WILLIS. That is all right. But to make it an offense to strike, maybe push a man, to make it a felony punishable by a fine of $10,000 and penitentiary confinement for so many years, and so on, that is a rough one. But if you say that is the law-I just wanted

to understand it .

Mr. LIBONATI. Now, in view of the fact that this implementation is primarily to create a situation where they operate in conformity with full police powers if necessary in order to carry out their responsibilities, I see nothing wrong in this bill, in view of the special nature of the services and the limitation of the bill to those officers who are given this responsibility. If it became a general law for all of the so-called enforcement officers as such, who would become enforcement officers just as a marshal in carrying out the responsibilities of his court procedure to serve subpenas, et cetera, then it would be a different situation.

But this is purely significant in that its identification is with foreign ministers whose high protective obligation rests with our Government. I see nothing wrong, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WILLIS. I think you may be buying it too fast. I think under the present law those would be

Mr. LIBONATI. I think this is a necessary impementation of the present law, if they are to carry out their duties in conformity with the present law, and you and I know that not any of them are protected without this law, and all they seek to do is place themselves in a position where they are vested with powers consistent with their responsibility.

We had this in a murder trial many years ago, the Durkin case, involving a Secret Service man by the name of Shanahan. I think the older ones among you will remember it. And the question of arrest was important, and the powers of the individual who carries out the Government prerogatives under which he operates under special assignments. If this law had been on the books, then the defense could not have proceeded on the theory that Shananhan had no right and exceeded his duties in trying to make an arrest. You understand?

Mr. KEARNEY. Yes. That is one of the problems that worry us. Mr. LIBONATI. So in that trial, if I may be apologetic, it is what saved Durkin's life.

Mr. LINDSAY. You mean he lost the case?

Mr. LIBONATI. He lost the case, but he got 35 years. There could be no defense for the killing, you understand, the incidence and evidentiary facts presented before the jury would indicate that the killing was without defense on the part of the defense as far as any theorization on the facts were concerned—and I mean theorization, Mr. Chairman. But we went into this question very thoroughly. And there was the admission that he exceeded his powers, and therefore attracted this defense of the individual against one whom he didn't know, who did not wear a star at the time and had no right to use his gun for the purposes that were intended.

Mr. KEARNEY. We have gone into this question, too. And we feel it is really not fair to ask our agents to do the things they are required to do without having legal backing. And somebody has to protect these foreign dignitaries. And it is our job.

Mr. LIBONATI. I see nothing wrong in this, Mr. Chairman, as one

person.

Mr. WILLIS. Mr. Kastenmeier.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. First of all, I would like to compliment Mr. Kearney on his testimony.

I would like to ask just one question. If the Prime Minister, the foreign minister, and the ambassador of a country were here at the same time, would all three be vested with this protection?

Mr. KEARNEY. Separate parts of it. As far as protection is concerned, we give a head of state and a head of government protection by the assignment of agents to guard him while he is here in the United States.

Foreign ministers we do not, unless it is specifically requested by the foreign government, or unless we have some information which makes it appear to us necessary to assign agents to protect them.

Ambassadors do not receive any protection from our agents at all. Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Apart from assigning agents, as far as the crime of assault is concerned, it would be a crime to assault any one of the three of these people while they were in this country?

Mr. KEARNEY. Yes.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. In other words, the head of state doesn't preempt the protection of the other two?

Mr. KEARNEY. No.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Conceivably this could be four people, in the case of Great Britain you could have the Queen, Prime Minister, the foreign minister, and the ambassador; all four might be protected, but no more in any case?

Mr. KEARNEY. Yes. I doubt whether the British would let them all out of the country at the same time.

Mr. LINDSAY. I just have two quick questions to get the record clear.

First, I would like to compliment you on narrowing this bill down as you have over the submission that was made last year. This is a very substantial change. A number of people were covered.

Second, I understand that you do not feel that the State Department and its security officers now have these powers that you have asked for in this bill.

Mr. KEARNEY. That is correct, sir.

Mr. LINDSAY. Next, is it now the practice that when a person from a foreign country, who would be covered by this bill, comes to the United States, he will be safeguarded only by State Department security officers and not by FBI or Secret Service?

Mr. KEARNEY. That is correct.

Mr. LINDSAY. And is it the practice of the State Department to supply this protection, at any and all times, when persons in this category come to the shores of the United States?

Mr. KEARNEY. Let me ask Mr. Lynch if it covers every minute. This I am not sure.

It is a 24-hour coverage for heads of state and heads of government. If it is necessary for a foreign minister, because he has requested it or for some other reason, in such instance it is 24 hours a day for them also. That means that we are the only security agent, we have the security agents around all the time; local police help out on this sort of thing, but we are the ones who have the 24-hour-a-day responsibility.

Mr. LINDSAY. Lastly, do I understand your testimony to mean that there have been instances in recent times when you have felt that there was a danger posed, and you were not able to act because of the absence of statutory powers?

Mr. KEARNEY. I will give an example. Mr. Lynch here was one of our agents who stopped the attack on Tito in the Waldorf-Astoria. He may have lacked authority to do this, and might have gotten in trouble, except the people who were overcome thought he was part of the New York City Police Force.

Mr. LINDSAY. I thank you.

Mr. WILLIS. Mr. Martin.

Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Kearney, you say on page 3 that the State Department undertook the task of protecting foreign dignitaries in 1917. What was the source of that authority?

Mr. KEARNEY. The source of the authority was quite limited, which is one of the things that has troubled us. It was the responsibility under international law, which the U.S. Government had, to insure the protection of these distinguished visitors, and no one else took up the burden. And we felt we had to.

Mr. MARTIN. In other words, prior to that time no one was protected?

Mr. KEARNEY. No. But prior to 1917, as I remarked starting out, there wasn't so much of this visiting back and forth of heads of state and heads of government.

Mr. MARTIN. What classification do you give these officers that protect these foreign dignitaries? How are they classified? What title do you give them?

Mr. KEARNEY. Security officers, or special agents—one or the other. Mr. MARTIN. That is all I have.

Mr. WILLIS. We will stand in recess for a half hour.

(Whereupon, a half-hour recess was taken.)

Mr. WILLIS. The subcommittee will come to order.

The next witness on our list is Mr. Taylor, Acting Chief, General Crimes Section, Criminal Division, Department of Justice. We are glad to have you, Mr. Taylor.

STATEMENT OF B. FRANKLIN TAYLOR, JR., ACTING CHIEF, GENERAL CRIMES SECTION, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Mr. TAYLOR. My name is B. Franklin Taylor, Jr., and I am Acting Chief of the General Crimes Section, Criminal Division, Department of Justice.

I have a rather brief statement which I think you gentlemen have before you. And I would like to read it, if I may.

Mr. WILLIS. Very well.

Mr. TAYLOR. H.R. 7651 would do three things:

First, section 112 of title 18, United States Code, now makes it a felony to assault, strike, wound, imprison, or offer violence to the person of an ambassador or other public minister. H.R. 7651 would amend section 112 so as to expand its coverage to include heads of foreign states and foreign governments and foreign ministers.

Second, section 1114 of title 18 makes the killing of certain officers and employees of the United States while engaged in or on account of the performance of their official duties a Federal offense. Section 111 of title 18 provides penalties for anyone who forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with persons designated in section 1114 of title 18 while engaged in or on account of the performance of their official duties. Section 3 of H.R. 7651 would amend section 1114 of title 18 to include security officers of the Department of State and the Foreign Service.

Third, the act of June 28, 1955 (69 Stat. 188, sec. 170e, title 5, U.S.C.) authorizes security officers of the Department of State and the Foreign Service, designated by the Secretary of State to carry firearms for the purpose of protecting heads of foreign states, high officials of foreign governments, and other distinguished visitors to the United States, the Secretary of State, the Under Secretary of State, and official representatives of foreign governments and of the United States attending international conferences or performing special missions.

Section 4 of H.R. 7651 would amend the act of June 28, 1955, by adding a provision authorizing security officers of the Department of State and the Foreign Service engaged in the previously mentioned protective duties

to arrest without warrant and deliver into custody any person violating section 111 or 112 of title 18, United States Code, in their presence or if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is commiting such a violation.