Mr. KEARNEY. A foreign minister would be the head of the department of foreign affairs, the equivalent of our Secretary of State. The common term-for example, when our Secretary of State attends a conference, such as a conference of the powers on Germany, it is referred to as a foreign ministers' conference, and he is considered one of the foreign ministers attending. That is the standard terminology, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LINDSAY. A minister is also something less than the Minister in Charge of the Foreign Office or the Secretary of State, we have officers with the title of minister who are below the Secretary of State.

Mr. KEARNEY. That is correct. But "foreign minister" is a technical word which means the head of the government department which deals with foreign relations in the country.

Mr. WILLIS. I have the same things in mind that the gentleman from New York has just touched on. I repeat, I think I know what the head of a foreign state or foreign government is. We come to the term "foreign minister." I do know from your explanation that that would include a foreign official having duties parallel and equivalent to or similar to our Secretary of State. Now, that I can follow. But I was under the impression that foreign ministers do include many other dignitaries.

Mr. KEARNEY. The term "foreign minister" as it is now used is limited to the individuals of whom I spoke. And there would be no more than 110 of these individuals involved in connection with this bill; that is, the head of the foreign government department dealing with foreign affairs. Thus the definition which is given in Satow's work, which is a standard work upon diplomatic intercourse between nations, is "the foreign minister or minister of foreign affairs is the regular intermediary between the state and foreign country."

It would be possible, if you feel it would clarify this language at all, to say "minister of foreign affairs" rather than "foreign minister." Both are used in international intercourse. And "foreign minister" currently is used more to describe this particular type of individual than any other name.

Mr. WILLIS. Suppose you used "minister of foreign affairs," would that assure that it would mean the headman conducting foreign affairs under the head of state, and that there would be only one for each country?

Mr. KEARNEY. Yes, sir.

I think the same is true of "foreign minister." But if you feel it would be safer to have "minister of foreign affairs" we could certainly have no objection.

Mr. WILLIS. The gentleman from Illinois suggests "plenipotentiary.' Is that a different animal?

Mr. KEARNEY. No. The minister plenipotentiary would not be covered in language of this type.

Mr. WILLIS. Would the Under Secretary of State, if there were such a person from England, be covered by this bill?

Mr. KEARNEY. No, not unless he were the Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs. If there were a vacancy in the position of Minister of Foreign Affairs and the British Under Secretary were the Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs, I would think proper construction would be, if he were on an official visit he should be treated the same as a Minister of Foreign Affairs, but otherwise not.

Mr. WILLIS. Assuming that you would have such a class of government officials in England, would an Assistant Secretary of State from England visiting here be protected?

Mr. KEARNEY. No, sir.

Mr. WILLIS. What I want to be sure of is that we are referring to the headman only.

Mr. KEARNEY. The headman only.

Mr. WILLIS. Could Mr. Butler or the head of state of England, the Prime Minister, for purposes of a particular visit, send someone to the United States, someone below the rank of Minister of Foreign Affairs, with the result that he should be treated as such and regarded as such for the purpose of his particular mission; could that happen?

Mr. KEARNEY. It would have no effect whatever upon this statute. Mr. WILLIS. I am talking about the scope of this statute. Let's understand what it means, or we are going to be in trouble sure enough. Mr. KEARNEY. We get that type of representative here all the time. There are always foreign dignitaries coming in who have been designated by their foreign ministers to represent their countries on particular problems to negotiate with us. But they would not fall under this bill at all. They would have nothing to do with it.

Mr. WILLIS. You are improving the bill by talking about it now in that you are making it very specific.

Mr. KEARNEY. This is a very limited bill, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WILLIS. I don't think the other sections are as limited as this

one.

The present law reads:

Whoever assaults, strikes, wounds, imprisons, or offers violence to the person of a head of a foreign state or foreign government.

Mr. KEARNEY. That is our proposal, Mr. Chairman. The present statute reads

Mr. WILLIS. Wait a minute. The memorandum counsel handed me says that there would be added to present coverage "heads of foreign states or foreign governments and foreign ministers."

Mr. KEARNEY. That is correct.

Mr. WILLIS. The present law reads:

Whoever assaults, strikes, wounds, imprisons or offers violence to the person of an ambassador or other public minister.

Now, "other public minister," wouldn't that cover the minister you now propose to add, foreign minister?

Mr. KEARNEY. No, sir; I would not say so, given the circumstances in which this law was written. This law was written in 1791. And at that time there were two general classes of envoys, let me say, who were assigned permanently to foreign governments, either an ambassador or a minister. They were generally referred to as public ministers. As a matter of fact, the United States didn't adopt the habit of sending ambassadors abroad until late. And all of our envoys abroad were called minister, that was their title. And they were described as public ministers of the United States. So that this statute is designed to cover

Mr. WILLIS. Let's talk about the present law.

In other words, you

construe the present law reading "ambassador or other public minister" to mean the same as ambassador?

Mr. KEARNEY. That is right, except the head of a legation instead of an embassy would be a minister or charge d'affaires of a legation, that would be my construction of this langauge.

Mr. WILLIS. So that what you said awhile ago still holds?

Mr. KEARNEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WILLIS. That this bill would add heads of foreign states that would be the President of France, let's say, or the Prime Minister of England-and the foreign minister which you described to mean the headman conducting foreign relations comparable to our ambassador? Mr. KEARNEY. No, comparable to our Secretary of State.

Mr. WILLIS. Secretary of State?

Mr. KEARNEY. Yes, sir.

This would not cover more than about, I would say, 300 high-ranking officials in the entire world.

Mr. WILLIS. Why 300? That is more than one per country.

Mr. KEARNEY. At the present time we have diplomatic relationships with 110 countries. In some of these countries the head of state and the head of government are the same, just as our President is head of both. In others they are different. For example, Queen Elizabeth is head of state in Great Britain.

Mr. WILLIS. I am sorry. Do you mean to say that the whole bill as amended would involve 300, or this addition?

Mr. KEARNEY. No, the addition would involve about 300.

Mr. WILLIS. Now, section 3 of the bill, according to this memorandum given to me, would amend 18 U.S.C. 1114, which makes it a Federal offense to kill certain specified Federal officials while engaged in the performance of their official duties, by adding "security officers of the Department of State and of the Foreign Service."

Now, that is a really large group, isn't it?

Mr. KEARNEY. Security officers, sir?

Mr. WILLIS. Yes.

Mr. KEARNEY. It would be a rather restrictive group. I would say there would be roughly 110 security officers who could be assigned to this duty of protecting the foreign heads of state. So that there would just be 110 officers. Of course, at any one time there might not be any of them acting and probably never more than about 8 or 10 engaged in this activity.

Mr. WILLIS. And that number would be the security officers of the Department of State as well as the Foreign Service?

Mr. KEARNEY. Yes.

Mr. WILLIS. How many did you say there were roughly, all told, although they may not be on duty?

Mr. KEARNEY. All told, approximately 110.

The limitation is determined by the fact that only those who have qualified with firearms the same way as FBI agents are qualified are allowed to participate in this type of protective duty.

Mr. WILLIS. Now, section 4 of the bill, according to this memorandum, would amend the act of June 28, 1955, which provides that security officers of the Department of State and the Foreign Service may carry firearms to protect

heads of foreign states, high officials of foreign governments, and other distinguished visitors to the United States, the Secretary of State, and the Under Secretary of State, and official representatives and of the United States attending international conferences or performing special duties.

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 language
Mr. 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.