in safeguarding distinguished foreign officials who visit the United States under the auspices of the Government of the United States. The bill has three provisions. In the first place, it amends title 18, United States Code, section 112. In its present form, section 112 makes it a felony to assault, strike, wound, imprison, or offer violence to the person of an ambassador or other public minister. This is a very old statute. It was enacted in 1791 and retains the form and terminology of a century and three-quarters past.

While the statute has remained unchanged, the situation which_it was intended to meet has undergone very substantial changes. In 1791 the conduct of foreign relations was carried out almost exclusively through embassies and legations. Heads of state, heads of governments, and foreign ministers did not themselves go on missions to further the international relationhips of their countries. When, for one reason or another, a matter was not handled through an established embassy or legation, special envoys were sent. Exceptions to this practice occurred only in connection with extraordinary conferences such as the Congress of Vienna.

The carrying on of foreign relations through ambassadors and ministers remained the almost exclusive method of operation all through the 19th century. It was only during and after the Second World War that the practice of "personal diplomacy," that is, the carrying out of foreign relations by meetings between the heads of state, heads of government, and foreign ministers, began to assume a prominent place in diplomatic practice.

In the relatively short space of time since World War II, however, this practice of personal diplomacy has grown enormously. In the case of the United States, the number of special visitors is substantially increased by the fact that we are the leading world power. As a result of these factors, in fiscal year 1955, 25 heads of state and government visited the United States. There were 21 in 1956, 14 in 1957, 18 in 1958, 21 in 1959, 29 in 1960, 41 in 1961, and 37 in 1962.

In fiscal year 1963 there were 48 heads of state and government who came to the United States, but this figure is higher than normal as a result of the attendance at the funeral of President Kennedy. Moreover, in addition, approximately 25 foreign ministers visit Washington for consultation during the course of each year.

Visits of foreign heads of state or government, or foreign ministers, are undertaken only with the advance agreement of the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government, in authorizing the visit or extending an invitation, assumes an obligation under international law and practice of affording special protection to these highest dignitaries of foreign states who are traveling or visiting in its territory. Obviously, any assault upon, or violent action against, a visiting head of state, a head of government, or a foreign minister, could not but have a serious effect upon our relations with that state.

In view of these numerous visits of the highest dignitaries of foreign states to our shores, it is certainly appropriate to bring the 1791 statute up to date, in order to take account of this great change in circumstances. Consequently, the first provision of H.R. 7651 makes a very limited amendment to 18 U.S.C. 112 by adding a small but very important group comprising visiting heads of foreign states, heads of foreign governments, and foreign ministers.

Mr. WILLIS. At this point, I would like to ask a couple of questions, if you don't mind.

Sections 1 and 2 of this bill would amend title 18, United States Code, section 112. That law as it stands today makes it a Federal offense to assault "an ambassador or other public minister in violation of the law of Nations."

What does the phrase "in violation of the law of Nations" mean? How do you go about proving it? I wonder whether that language should be changed, or at least have its meaning made clear to us. How do you prove the "law of Nations"? Suppose someone did assault an ambassador, which is a heinous offense, and he is prosecuted. Why shouldn't he be prosecuted under common law? Wouldn't that be easier? And why should you have to have a special statute which requires you to prove the "law of Nations"?

Mr. TUCK. Another thing along that line, which concerns me, is that it is my understanding that ambassadors are exempt from arrest in this country, and yet the Federal Government would come in and arrest anyone involved in an altercation with one of these foreigners who might come in our States and insult our people, resulting in someone making an attack on him. Then a citizen involved in such an altercation could be sent to a Federal penitentiary, and not be tried by our own State courts.

Mr. WILLIS. Of course, we are talking about the law as it stands today. This bill would add heads of state, of foreign governments, and foreign ministers. But the law as it stands since 1791 is that it is a Federal criminal offense to assault "an ambassador or other public minister in violation of the law of Nations." And I would like to know what that law means before going into what is proposed to be added to it.

Mr. LIBONATI. Wouldn't this descriptive proposal place jurisdiction in the International Court to try it?

Mr. KEARNEY. No, sir.

Mr. WILLIS. This law has been on the books, the Federal criminal statute, since 1791. And this would mean that the prosecution would be, under the statute, before the U.S. courts. That is the law of today. We didn't enact it. But I would like to know what it means. Mr. KEARNEY. Under international law, Mr. Chairman, the diplomatic representative of a foreign government is entitled to protection, from the government to which he is accredited, against any assaults or interference with him of the character described in this statute. In other words, this statute is setting forth, in effect, what is the "law of Nations" on the subject.

Mr. WILLIS. And makes it a Federal offense, susceptable to prosecution before the Federal Courts?

Mr. KEARNEY. That is correct, sir.

Mr. WILLIS. Now, how do you go about proving that law before a Federal court-the "law of Nations"-alleged to have been violated? Mr. KEARNEY. This perhaps is a question which the Department of Justice representative is better qualified to answer than I am.

Mr. WILLIS. To be frank about it, I have asked that question of Justice, and they say you know about it.

Mr. KEARNEY. I will give you my opinion. All I am saying is that I am not the trial court.

The Supreme Court has held on numerous occasions in a great number of cases that the "law of Nations"-the international law-is part of the law of the United States. I don't think there would be any question of having to prove what international law is. I think it is a matter of which the Court would take judicial cognizance, as it would take judicial cognizance of the common law.

Mr. WILLIS. And you say it is part of the "law of Nations"?
Mr. KEARNEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WILLIS. Since a nation to which an ambassador is assigned has the obligation of protecting his person, therefore an assault on the person of an ambassador violates the "law of Nations"?

Mr. KEARNEY. That is correct, sir.

Mr. WILLIS. Is that from textbooks, or writers on jurisprudence, or what?

Mr. KEARNEY. That is from textbooks; it is from international-law writers. It is now a part of the convention on diplomatic practice which was adopted at Vienna 3 years ago, and which is currently pending before the Senate. I can, I believe, give you a statement from one of our own writers on this matter. In the publication International Law, Chiefly as Interpreted and Applied by the United States, by Charles Cheney Hyde, which is a leading international law work in the United States, Professor Hyde states:

Respect for the state which he represents demands that a minister shall at all times enjoy the right to fulfill his diplomatic function without hindrance or molestation. To that end it is essential that his person be afforded complete protection. This principle for which deference has been expressed in varying forms is solidly entrenched in the law of Nations. It serves to impose a heavy burden upon every state that is receptive of a diplomatic corps.

Mr. LIBONATI. But it follows this: they add in the section 2 "while engaged in the performance of his official duties," and then it states lower down in section 4

Security officers of the Department of State and the Foreign Service engaged in the performance of the duties prescribed in section 1 of this Act are empowered to arrest without warrant and deliver into custody any person violating

To whom?

Mr. WILLIS. I realize that. We will come back to that. Thus far we have talked about sections 1 and 2 of the bill. I would like to clarify that, and we will then pass on to the other sections.

As I understand it-if I am wrong, correct me--the amendment proposed by sections 1 and 2 of the bill does no more than to add to the categories of people whose persons are to be protected, the "heads of foreign states or foreign governments and foreign ministers"; is that correct?

Mr. KEARNEY. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LIBONATI. Why not talk about the implementation subsequent thereto in the bill?

Mr. WILLIS. I think we should let the witness read his whole statement, because we can't examine him before he has expressed himself on it. Proceed, sir.

Mr. KEARNEY. Thank you, sir.

We are not urging this amendment on a theoretical basis just in order to bring the statute in line with modern-day conditions. In

many instances the Department of State is in possession of advance information regarding threatened acts of violence against a visiting head of state or government. For example, when President Betancourt of Venezuela visited the United States in February 1963, information was received from the intelligence community of the U.S. Goyernment that his airplane would be blown up when leaving Puerto

Rico.

During the recent funeral of President Kennedy, several threats against the life of President de Gaulle of France were received. Some of this information was received from the French Government itself, while other information was received from the U.S. intelligence community. During the recent visit of President Tito to the United States in October 1963, several threats were received. In one instance, two anti-Tito pickets broke through on the 35th floor of the Waldorf Astoria Hotel where President Tito was residing. It was necessary to restrain them by physical force.

During the visit of Juan Bosch, President of the Dominican Republic, in January 1963, information was received from the U.S. intelligence community that certain individuals, by name, who were friendly to the opposition regime, would kill President Bosch while in New York.

It is clear that we should not refuse to approve the visits of these foreign dignitaries merely because threats against them have been made. But it is also quite clear that, having approved the visits, we should take ever reasonable measure to protect and safeguard our guests while they are in the United States. The proposed amendment of title 18, United States Code, section 112 is a necessary element in providing this protection.

Equally necessary are the second and third provisions in H.R. 7651, each of which relates to the activities of the security officers of the Department of State in protecting these foreign dignitaries during the course of their visits to the United States.

The State Department has undertaken the task of protecting visiting foreign dignitaries since 1917. However, the only legislation which serves to assist the Department in carrying out this difficult and very important function is the act of June 28, 1955 (5 U.S.C. 170(e)). This act authorizes the security officers of the Department to carry firearms for the purpose of "protecting heads of foreign states, officials of foreign governments, and other distinguished visitors to the United States."

While the Department security officers carry out this protective function, they are not included within the scope of 18 U.S.C. 1114 which makes the murder or manslaughter of a wide variety of officers or employees of the United States while engaged in the performance of their official duties a Federal offense.

The officers and employees presently covered include, for example, Post Office inspectors, all Coast Guard personnel, all Internal Revenue personnel, all immigration officers, as well as all Park Service employees, all employees of the Bureau of Animal Industry and of the Bureau of Land Management in the Department of Agriculture, and all employees of the Indian Field Service.

Since visiting heads of state and of government and foreign ministers are geusts of the President and the Federal Government, the

Federal Government must be responsible for their protection and safety. If a security officer of the Department of State is killed while protecting a visiting head of state against an assassin, it is only fitting that this killing should be treated as a Federal offense. The second provision of H.R. 7651 amends 18 U.S.C. 1114, to place State Department security officers on an equal footing which the other law enforcement officers who are now covered by this section.

A State Department security officer who is assigned to protect foreign dignitaries should be able to arrest any individual who commits an assault or offers violence to a head of state, a head of government, or a foreign minister whom that officer has been assigned to protect while in the United States. Furthermore, in order to insure the safety of these foreign dignitaries, the security officer should be able to arrest an individual when he has reasonable grounds to believe that individual is going to injure the foreign dignitary.

Past experience has established that on numerous occasions the Department security officer is the only protective officer present with the dignitary during portions of his visit. He should not be in a position of having to wait until the head of state is actually assaulted before he can step in and take action.

In addition, the security officer should be authorized to arrest any individual who attempts to prevent him from carrying out his duty of protecting the foreign dignitary. Accordingly, the third provision of H.R. 7651 authorizes the Department security officers to arrest without warrant, and deliver into custody, any person who violates 18 U.S.C. 112 as amended, or any person assaulting, resisting, or interfering with the security officers while they are engaged in the performance of these protective duties.

The arrest could be made only if the violations are committed in the presence of the security officer or if the security officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the individual concerned has committed or is committing such a violation. The nature of this power to arrest is exactly the same as that given to agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. marshals and their deputies, and employees of the Bureau of Prisons of the Department of Justice (18 U.S.C. 3050, 3052, and 3053), but limited to the area of the protection of foreign dignitaries.

It is a reasonable grant of authority to men who are given a very heavy responsibility and who are scarcely in a position to discharge that responsibility without having such authority. Fortunately we have not had any serious incident involving a foreign head of state or government or a foreign minirster up to now, but the chance of such an incident is always present and always real. It would be very unfortunate if a head of state were to be violently assaulted in the United States and the incident might have been prevented if only we had the legislation on the books which the Department of State is seeking today.

Mr. WILLIS. I want to ask a few questions, and the other members will have the same opportunity.

In sections 1 and 2, the proposed law would add to present law the protection of heads of foreign states or foreign governments and foreign ministers. Now, I think I pretty well have in my mind who the head of a foreign state or head of a foreign government is. But I don't know what foreign ministers are.