Iouse document No. 94-312

VETO OF ACT PROVIDING FOR PROTECTION OF

FOREIGN DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS AND INCREASING SIZE OF THE EXECUTIVE PROTECTIVE

SERVICE

MESSAGE

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES VETOING

H.R. 12

AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 3, UNITED STATES CODE, TO PROVIDE FOR THE PROTECTION OF FOREIGN DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS TO INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE EXECUTIVE PROTECTIVE SERVICE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

DE EMBEB 1,1975.-Message and accompanying act ordered to be printed

as a House Document

57-011 0

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTIrG OFFICE

WASHINGTON " 1975
To the Houe of Representaties :

I am returning, without my approval H.R. 12, a bill to provide

for the protection of foreign diplomatic missions and to increase the

size of the Executive Protective Service.

I am in agreement with the primary objective of H.R. 12-to increase the size of the Executive Protective Service to enable it to more

effectively fulfill its responsibility under current law. I am also mindful of the need to assure adequate protection of foreign diplomats and

missions. However, I am unable to sign this bill because it would unwisely extend the purpose and functions of the Executive Protective

Service and would create a precedent that could erode current and

proper distinctions between Federal and local law enforcement

responsibilities.

Protection of foreign diplomatic officials and missions is an established part of the overall responsibility of local law enforcement

agencies to protect individuals and property within their respective

jurisdictions. The conditions under which EPS personnel could be

assigned outside the Washington, D.C., area under the enrolled bill

are unwarranted and unwise. Although I realize that the Congress has

limited these circumstances to only seven metropolitan areas and to

situations of extraordinary protective need, I am concerned that this

bill ould be but a first step toward a permanent and wider expansion

of the role of EPS nationally.

When the Congress enacted Public Law 91-217, which established

the EPS in 1970 and authorized the President to assign officers of the

Service to areas outside Washington, D.C., on a case-by-case basis to

safeguard foreign missions, it made its intention clear concerning the

wise exercise of that authority. The House Committee on Public Works

in its report on that legislation emphasized that:

"This authority extends only to situations of extraordinary gravity,

where the local police force is totally incapable of providing a level of

protection deemed essential to the international integrity of the U.S.,

or where the protection of the President himself, for example, would

be involved. This additional authority is not, and may not be construed

to be, a substitute for the responsibility of local police forces to provide

protection for consulates, the United Nations, and similar foreign delegations within the U.S." (House Committee on Public Works report

on H.R. 14944, December 8,1969).

I agree fully with that statement.

H.R. 12 would also authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to reimburse State and local governments for provision of protective and

other services to foreign missions and visiting officials, in lieu of providing those services directly by the Executive Protective Service. A

maximum of $3.5 million annually would be authorized to be appropriated for that purpose. This authority, too, would set an unwise and

potentially very expensive precedent. It would inevitably lead to pressures to reimburse State and local governments for other local services

iii)
provided to foreign missions and perhaps even for protection of the

President and Presidential candidates. Moreover, reimbursements to

State and local governments for protective assistance, which is a historic part of their duty under our Federal system of government, are

contrary to the cooperative nature of law enforcement in the United

States.

GRALD R. FORD

THE WrIE HoUSE, November 29, 1975.