D.C., area and diplomatic missions outside Washington as the President may direct on a case-by-case basis. The authorized strength of the Service was set at 850 officers. Public Law 91-217 was written in recognition of the nation's obligations under international law and practice to take all reasonable precautions to assure the safety of foreign diplomatic missions and their personnel. The Executive Protective Service also retained its responsibility to protect the buildings and grounds of the White House and Executive Office Buildings. Since 1970, however, incidents of political terrorism have increased, along with the demands for protective services. A strong Federal interest exists in assuring the safety of foreign officials visiting the United States, whether the visit is to Washington, D.C., or other areas. of the United States. Developments since the passage of the 1970 Act demonstrate the need for protective services wherever a substantial number of foreign missions exist. As this need has increased-and it could increase still further-local communities must no longer be forced to bear the full cost of what is essentially a Federal obligation. A number of incidents have occurred since 1970 at foreign embassies in Washington, D.C., including bombings, bomb threats, assaults, and robberies. The world during the same period has experienced the assassination of members of the Israeli Olympic Team, the murder of American diplomats in Sudan, and a spate of politically motivated kidnapings. This threat exists not only in Washington but in any city where a substantial number of foreign missions are located. Day-to-day protection of foreign diplomatic missions located outside Washington, D.C., is the responsibility of local police departments. That basic responsibility should remain with local officials. But there are instances of extraordinary protective need when Federal assistance is wise and justified. This legislation facilitates such assistance. Such assistance is particularly valid in view of the fact that local residents in New York or Chicago must otherwise pay the full cost of what must be considered a national duty and responsibility. The United Nations, for example, and the foreign missions accredited to the United Nations pay no property or other taxes or payments in lieu of taxes under Article 23 of the Vienna Convention and the Convention on the United Nations. Nor do employees of the United Nations who are aliens pay local income taxes to help offset any costs they impose on local government. This burden is significant. About 4,000 of the 5,000 United Nations employees stationed in New York City are foreign nationals and thus exempt from all local taxes. PROVISIONS OF LEGISLATION In addition to raising the Executive Protective Service personnel ceiling from 850 to 1200 officers, H.R. 12, as reported, authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to provide additional police protection for foreign missions in cases of extraordinary protective need in cities. where 20 or more legations are located. The following cities have twenty or more foreign consular offices: New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, New Orleans, San Francisco, and Houston. To provide this protection, the Secretary may dispatch the necessary officers from Washington. As an alternative, the Secretary may utilize, with their consent and on a reimbursable basis, the services, personnel, S.R. 375 equipment, and facilities of State and local governments to meet such extraordinary protective needs. This authority to protect foreign officials and property does not preempt the role of local officials. Following any decision that an extraordinary protective need existed, but prior to the decision to introduce Executive Protective Service officers into any metropolitan area outside the Washington, D.C., area, local officials should be consulted and given the option of providing the necessary protection and receiving Federal reimbursement for such services, instead of accepting the contingent of Executive Protective Service personnel. Whenever possible the Executive Protective Service should utilize local police agencies in fulfilling the duties outlined in this bill. Local police are more knowledgeable about local conditions than officers sent from Washington. And the cost savings from the use of local officers could prove substantial. The cost in salary, transportation, and benefits of sending one EPS officer to New York City for one week is estimated by the Treasury Department at $700, or an annual rate of about $35,000. That is approximately twice the cost, in salary and benefits, of using one New York City policeman. The cost differential would be greater at locations farther from Washington. This legislation, of course, does not preclude the President, on a caseby-case basis, from directing the Executive Protective Service to provide protection in a particular city, without the consent of the local governments, as the need may arise. The bill also contains a definition of "foreign diplomatic mission" for the purposes of this bill. When associated with Washington, D.C., this definition should be necessarily limited to the embassy structure proper. But outside Washington, it must take on a broader interpretation. Representatives of foreign governments, including provisional governments that may not be recognized by the United States, often visit New York City to participate in the activities of the United Nations. The presence of these individuals may incite what must be termed an extraordinary protective need. This was the case during the visit to New York City in November 1974 of Yasir Arafat, the leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization. The extraordinary protection for that one-day Arafat visit cost the taxpayers of New York City an estimated $700,000. While visiting the United Nations, these foreign visitors often stay at a hotel, rather than at what might be defined under the strictest interpretation as a foreign mission. To assure equitable treatment in such situations, this legislation covers the extraordinary protective needs provided at the hotels and other facilities utilized by visiting dignitaries in such a situation. The interpretation of this definition, as well as the balance of the amendments to title 3, United States Code, is retroactive to July 1, 1974, when these added burdens and dangers became particularly acute. A maximum of $3,500,000 is set on the funds that can be reimbursed for the retroactive period. This figure was derived from testimony that the projected costs were within that limitation. A similar limitation of $3,500,000 per fiscal year is set on the funds for reimbursing local agencies. Should that prospective ceiling prove inaccurate, the S.R. 375 Treasury Department can meet the problem by dispatching Executive Protective Service officers from Washington, rather than asking local officers to serve on a reimbursable basis. HEARINGS The Subcommittee on Buildings and Grounds conducted a hearing on H.R. 12 on June 9, 1975. Testimony was presented by an official of the Treasury Department, Members of Congress, and representatives of the International Conference of Police Associations. ROLLCALL VOTES Section 133 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 and the rules of the Committee on Public Works require that any rollcall votes be announced in this report. H.R. 12 was ordered reported on a rollcall vote of nine to two, with Senators Baker, Bentsen, Buckley, Culver, Domenici, Gravel, Hart, Randolph, and Stafford voting in the affirmative and Senators Burdick and Morgan voting in the negative. COST OF THE LEGISLATION Section 252(a)(1) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 requires publication in this report of the Committee's estimate of the cost of reported legislation, together with estimates prepared by any Federal agency. The cost of subsection (d) is estimated by the Treasury Department as follows: The estimate is based upon plans to hire 166 new officers, out of the 350 authorized by this subsection. Should the Department hire the full complement of 350 officers, the cost of this subsection would be approximately twice the above figures. The cost of subsection (e) is limited to a maximum of $3,500,000 annually. S.R. 375 During consideration of H. R. 12 by the Committee on Public Works, we became extremely concerned that the bill will have effects far beyond what the supporters intend, and will establish an undesirable precedent. In brief, the bill is vague, discriminatory, and redundant of existing law in major provisions. Moreover, it will break down important distinctions between federal and local police authority. The bill is vague as to applicability and cost. It invites either carte blanche spending by city governments or dangerous federal control. It authorizes retroactive reimbursements to local police departments for undefined expenses relating to "extraordinary protective needs," connected with protecting foreign officers and their missions. It goes so far as to provide for officers of provisional governments staying in hotel or motel rooms. The measure offers no guidelines for the limits of protection to be paid for by the federal government, and no provision for audit of the scope and quality of police response. Thus the government will have to do one of two things: either it will pay out whatever the local jurisdictions claim as justifiable, or it will begin, direct, and control the actions of local police, deciding what shall and shall not be acceptable procedure. H.R. 12 is obviously discriminatory. Federal restitution to local jurisdictions will be made only if such are metropolitan areas having 20 or more foreign missions. These presently are New York City, Houston, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, and New Orleans. The District of Columbia is specifically excluded, in spite of the fact that its police routinely encounter expenses relating to foreign missions, even with the presence of federal police. The point ought to be immediately obvious that other major cities, states, counties and small towns may experience identical problems with foreign visitors, but will be excluded from benefit. The result may be that in the future we will see a steady stream of cities asking to be included and costs will skyrocket. Finally, the bill is redundant. Public Law 91-217 already provides for the President, on a case-by-case basis, to provide direct federal police protection to any foreign visitor anywhere in the United States. Obviously, the old law enjoys the blessing of more restraint than the measure under consideration. All these difficulties derive from the real nature of the bill. This is legislation for the benefit of New York City and quite incidentallya handful of others. What we are being asked to do is pay for more or less routine expenses experienced by New York City because of the presence of the United Nations and ambassadors to it, and in the case of the other cities because of consulates. The City of New York, and not the federal government, asked that the United Nations be located within its limits and since has reaped the economic and cultural rewards of its presence there. It is only fair, therefore, that if there are expenses to be incurred by the city as a result, they be borne willingly and with no expectation that the United States Government reimburse the city for them. For these reasons, we cannot support this legislation. ROBERT MORGAN. S.R. 375 |