Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "4520879",
    "label": "Protection - Responsibilities of the Secret Service and EPS (1)",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4520879"
}

{
    "id": "4520879",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4520879",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Protection - Responsibilities of the Secret Service and EPS (1)",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4520879",
    "collections": [
        "Philip W. Buchen Files",
        "Philip Buchen's General Subject Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Department of Homeland Security. U.S. Secret Service. (2003 - )",
        "Ex-presidents",
        "Presidential protection"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0019/574067/Batch0002/38-0019-f-4520879.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0019/574067/Batch0002/38-0019-f-4520879.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0019/574067/Batch0002/38-0019-f-4520879.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4520879",
    "naId": 4520879,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1974-11-01",
        "month": 11,
        "year": 1974
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1974-08-01",
        "month": 8,
        "year": 1974
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0019/574067/Batch0002/38-0019-f-4520879.pdf",
    "mediaId": "b2645a77cb6078b9",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 57, folder \"Protection - Responsibilities of the\nSecret Service and EPS (1)\" of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford\nPresidential Library.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nDigitized from Box 57 of the Philip Buchen Files\nat the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJay:\nRo item on p.ll.\nIs GAO right on\nthe legal point ?\nP\nGERALD LISEARY ? FORD\nEva, I've forwarded\nto gay.\nSecret Service\n11\ndoubt, to apply for its benefits. Nothing will be lost by\nextending the deadline, and much can be gained by doing so.\nThe program was created to bind up the lingering wounds of the\nVietnam war. Let's apply a full bandage, not a mere Band-Aid.\nMidwest News\nSeth Kantor, Detroit News, Washington: A detail of Secret\nService agents, acting under orders from Treasury Secretary\nWilliam Simon, has been providing Simon and his family personal\nbodyguard protection at a cost of more than $500,000 a year.\nBut a report by the General Accounting Office says Simon is not\nauthorized by law to have the special unit, Treasury officials\nalso have told the GAO that $5,400 is being spent to establish\nspecial facilities for the Secret Service at Simon's home.\nSpokesmen for Simon and the Secret Service refused to say what\nthose facilities are or how many agents are being used to\nserve Simon personally.\nFOREIGN AFFAIRS - DEFENSE\nWestern Papers\nHouston Chronicle, \"Either Way, It Is Embarrassing.\"\nOnce again, for the umpteenth time, this country has been\ncaught showing disregard for our Latin American neighbors.\nIt is downright embarrassing. In its determination to show\nmuscle, Congress included in the trade act passed at the\nlast session a provision which made members of the Organization\nof Petroleum Exporting Countries ineligible for normal trade\nconcessions. The target of course was the Arab nations, but\noverlooked was the fact that during their oil boycott, countries\nsuch as Venezuela and Ecuador continued to supply us petroleum.\nWe have some fence-mending to do, and best we get about it.\n-----\nFOKD\nEdgar Prina, Military Writer, Copley News Service\nThe\nSoviet Union spent 50 per cent more than the United States on\nnaval ship construction in the 1964-74 decade, accordino to\nLIBRARY\nnew Central Intelligence Agency estimates. The previous\nsecret CIA figures were disclosed by Defense Secretary James\nR. Schlesinger who indicated that according to the latest\nCIA projections, the Soviets are \"outspending the United States\non defense by 20 per cent.\"\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nAugust 19, 1974\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nPhil Buchen\nB.C.\nFROM:\nBill Casselman\nSUBJECT:\nRole of the Office of Counsel to the President\nre Protective Responsibilities of the United\nStates Secret Service and the Executive\nProtective Service\nThe more frequently recurring protective responsibilities of the United\nStates Secret Service (USSS) and the Executive Protective Service (EPS)\nare performed by these agencies without the necessity of a Presidential\ndirective. However, in certain instances, protective functions are to be\nperformed at the direction of the President. In the past, this responsibility\nhas devolved upon the Office of Counsel to the President for handling, in\nclose coordination with the Department of State and the Department of the\nTreasury.\nThe basic authority of the USSS is contained in 18 U.S.C. 3056, which\nstates in pertinent part:\n(a) Subject to the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury,\nthe United States Secret Service, Treasury Department, is\nauthorized to protect the person of the President of the United\nStates,\nprotect the person of a visiting head of a foreign\nstate or foreign government and, at the direction of the President,\nother distinguished foreign visitors to the United States and\nofficial representatives of the United States performing special\nmissions abroad\n(emphasis added)\nThe Executive Protective Service, the successor organization of the White\nHouse Police Force, also reports to the Secretary of the Treasury, and\n2\nperforms such duties as the Director of the Secret Service, without the\nnecessity of a Presidential directive, shall prescribe at various locations.\nThese locations include the Executive Mansion and grounds, any building in\nwhich Presidential offices are located, and \"foreign diplomatic missions\nlocated in the metropolitan area of the District of Columbia\" (3 U.S.C. 202).\nThis section also provides that EPS shall perform such protective duties at\n\"foreign diplomatic missions located in such other areas in the United States,\nits territories and possessions, as the President, on a case-by-case basis,\nmay direct. \"\nTo date, the only EPS contingent located outside of the District of Columbia\nmetropolitan area is in New York City, due to the number of diplomatic\nmissions present in conjunction with the United Nations. EPS presently\npossesses the only authority to provide such protection at diplomatic\nmissions. Local police will generally not provide protection in the\ncorridors of high rise buildings, thus making the EPS the only available\nsource of protection for many missions.\nThe present practice with respect to requests for protective services that\nrequire a Presidential directive has been for the Office of Protocol of the\nDepartment of State to make an oral request of the Counsel to the President\nand to follow with a written confirmation. The Counsel's office then confers\nwith the Protective Forces Division of the USSS as to the particular need for\nsecurity for either that person or location. If the Secret Service then feels\nthat the request is justified, the Counsel's office will send a written request\nto the appropriate office in the Department of the Treasury.\nIt can be expected that these requests will continue to remain a rather\nsensitive problem in the future. The prestige factor of being entitled to\nprotection, as well as the accompanying limousines and the elimination of\nwaiting in lines, will likely result in some requests that cannot be justified.\nIn terms of long range planning, some thought might be given to relieving\nthe relatively small USSS and EPS organizations of this responsibility, and\ninstead placing it in an already existing security function elsewhere, such\nas that of the Department of State or the Federal Protective Service of the\nGeneral Services Administration. This will, however, require new statutory\nauthority. In view of the current congressional criticism of the already\nlarge number of federal security forces, a new organization should not be\ncreated.\nFORO LIBRARY\nSecret\nservice\nMonday 8/26/74\nPlans to call back at 12:30\n11:15 Dr. Leo Savage, Executive Director, U.S. Counsel for\nWorld Affairs, has called to say on August 16 he wrote a\nletter to the President re a possible subpoena with respect\nto his case of fraud which comes up in the U.S. Superior Court\nin Washington tomorrow. In the letter he pointed out that he\ndidn't understand how the Secret Service was involved.\nThe Secret Service was directed to promote the concept that\nthe title of Mr. Teenage America was a fraud -- after Vice President\nFord had extended best wishes to Mr. Campbell. (five days before\nan arrest at the Statler Hilton for unpaid board bill on Monday --\nevicted on Saturday).\nDuring the arrest, the Secret Service returned to speak to Mr. Campbell\nand wanted to know if he had used the letter from the Vice President\ncomplimentary accommodations at the\nto get hotel? Dr.Mr. Savage said there should have been\nno involvement of Secret Service -- had no basis in law except as\na fishing expedition.\nIs asking if there is any way we could\nclear this up without the issuance of a subpeena.\nFORD i LIBRARY BERALD\nOF\nREPARTMENT THE 1789 TREASURY\nTHE\nTHE UNDER SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY\nBorpiling\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20220\nSeptember 16, 1974\nDear Phil:\nIn view of the fact that we will be discussing the\nmatter of Secret Service protection on future occasions,\nI thought that it would be appropriate to send you a\ncopy of a memorandum which I prepared as General Counsel\nof this Department. The memorandum discusses situations\nduring which protection has been authorized where it was\nnot specifically authorized under the protective statute,\n18 U.S.C. 3056 (a).\nWith kind regards,\nSincerely yours,\nEdward C. Schmults\nThe Honorable\nPhilip Buchen\nCounsel to the President\nThe White House\nWashington, D. C.\nEnclosure\nGERAALD FORD LIBRART\nOF\nAMOUNT THE 1789 TREASURY\nTHE\nTHE UNDER SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20220\nSeptember 16, 1974\nDear Phil:\nIn view of the fact that we will be discussing the\nmatter of Secret Service protection on future occasions,\nI thought that it would be appropriate to send you a\ncopy of a memorandum which I prepared as General Counsel\nof this Department. The memorandum discusses situations\nduring which protection has been authorized where itwwas\nnot specifically authorized under the protective statute,\n18 U.S.C. 3056 (a).\nWith kind regards,\nSincerely yours,\n(Signed) Ed Schmults\nEdward C. Schmults\nThe Honorable\nPhilip Buchen\nCounsel to the President\nThe White House\nWashington, D. C.\nEnclosure\nLIBRARY GERALD ? FORD\nDEPARTMENT\nTHE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE TREASURY\nTHE\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20220\n1784\nMAR 19 1974\nMEMORANDUM FOR: Secretary Shultz\nFROM:\nEdward C. Schmults\nSUBJECT:\nThe Authority of the Secret Service to Provide Protection\nin Circumstances Not Specified in 18 U.S.C. 3056(a)\nFollowing your appearance before the Senate Appropriations Committee on\nFebruary 27th, you asked me to prepare a memorandum on the authority of the\nSecret Service to provide protection in circumstances not specified in the\nbasic protective statute, 18 U.S.C. 3056(a). This document is provided in\nresponse to that request.\nIn 1865 the Secret Service was established as a division of the Treasury\nDepartment to suppress counterfeiting, but before the turn of the century it\nwas engaged, in an ad hoc, stop-gap way, in protecting the President.\nAlthough the Secret Service began full-time protection of the President in\n1902, four years passed before specific legislative sanction and funds were\nprovided for such protection. It was not until 1951 that the basic protective\nstatute was enacted authorizing permanent protection for the President. This\nstatute, 18 U.S.C. 3056(a), has been amended several times to enlarge the\nnumber of persons to be protected. Thus, the evolution of the Secret Service\nprotective mission has been an on-going process. The history and nature of\nthat mission make it imperative, in Treasury's view, that the protective\nstatute not be regarded as preventing the Secret Service from protecting\npersons not specifically covered by the statute in circumstances where the\nrisk of harm and the public interest justify protection.\nBERRLD FORD LIBRART\n- 2 -\nThe basic statute now authorizes the Secret Service, subject to the\ndirection of the Secretary of the Treasury, to protect the President and his\nimmediate family; the President-elect; the Vice President or other officer\nnext in succession to the President; the Vice President-elect; major\nPresidential and Vice Presidential candidates; former Presidents and\ntheir wives; the widows of former Presidents until death or remarriage;\nminor children of former Presidentsuntil they reach the age of sixteen;\nvisiting heads of state and of foreign governments; and, at the direction\nof the President, other distinguished foreign visitors and official repre-\nsentatives of the United States performing special missions abroad\n2/\nConsistent with the evolution of the Secret Service's protective mission,\nthe Treasury Department has over the years taken the position that this\nstatutory enumeration does not preclude the Secret Service from affording\nprotection to individuals who do not fall within the specific categories\nset forth in 18 U.S.C. 3056(a) if there are circumstances present which make\nsuch protection reasonable as a matter of both law and public policy. Be-\ncause of the nature of what is in issue, i.e., the protection of persons\nwhose lives are considered to be in danger, we have not regarded Congress'\n1/ The responsibility to protect Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates\nstems from P.L. 90-331 (1968). This authority is noted in a footnote to\n18 U.S.C. 3056.\n2/ The protective statute has been considerably broadened since 1951 when\nit only authorized protection of the President and his immediate family,\nthe Vice President and the President-elect. Persons in several of the\nnew categories of protectees added by the Congress had already been\nreceiving protection at the direction of the President prior to\nCongress' specific authorization.\nLIBRARY GERALD\n- 3 -\nenumeration of specific classes of persons to be protected as intended to\npreclude protection which is in the public interest when ordered by the\nPresident on a temporary basis or protection for which there is other\nauthority, as discussed below.\n****\nThe Treasury Department has operated for many years under the general\npresumption that there is Presidential authority to order protective details\nin cases not expressly covered by the protective statute but which are in\nthe public interest. This ability provides a necessary flexibility,\nparticularly in emergency situations, to cover important situations not\nforeseen by the Congress and not dealt with in 18 U.S.C. 3056(a). In a\npresent day environment where terrorism and kidnapping are being increasingly\nutilized in attempts to secure social and economic demands, this capability\nappears to be a necessity.\nThe Treasury, as an agency of the Executive branch of the government,\nis not in a position to express authoritative conclusions as to the basis\nfor the President's inherent power to order Secret Service protection of a\nspecific individual. That is a determination to be made in the first instance\nby Counsel to the President. But, in the absence of an authoritative expression\nto the contrary, the Treasury believes that in cases where the President deter-\nmines that the risk of harm and the public interest justify Secret Service\nprotection, his directive to furnish such protection is, as a matter of law,\npresumptively valid.\nFORD\nLIBRARY\n- 4 -\nInherent executive authority has been utilized on a number of past\noccasions by many Presidents to order protection in a variety of circumstances\nFor example, during World War II protection was afforded to Queen Wilhelmina\nof the Netherlands, Prime Minister Winston Churchill and other official\nforeign visitors to the United States. President Truman and his successors\nsent Secret Service details to Latin America to provide protection for\nSecretaries of State. Governor Rockefeller was protected by the Secret\nService on an official trip to Latin America during a time when extensive\nrioting was taking place. Former Vice President Humphrey received protection\nfor six months in 1969 after leaving office. Although he was not a candidate\nfor the Presidency, Senator Edward M. Kennedy was protected subsequent to\nthe assassination attempt against Governor Wallace during the 1972 Campaign.\nFinally, we would point out that if the statute is read literally, protection\nfor Vice President-designate Ford was not expressly authorized during the\ntime period from his nomination by the President until his confirmation by\nthe Congress, since he was neither a \"candidate\" for the Vice Presidency for\nwhom protection was recommended by the advisory committee prescribed in\nP.L. 90-331, nor an official next in succession to the Presidency, nor a\n\"Vice President-elect.\"\n3/ With two exceptions, those situations where protection has been ordered\nby the President have involved the protection of individuals in\ncircumstances akin to, but not within, the specific parameters set\nforth in 18 U.S.C. 3056(a). These exceptions concern the protection of\nforeign officials visiting the United States and protection of U.S.\nofficials on missions abroad before the statute was amended in 1971\nto specifically cover both types of situations.\nLIBRARY GERALD ? FORD\n- 5 -\nThe Congress has been informed of past instances where the Secret Service\nhas provided protection for persons not within the specific categories listed\nin 18 U.S.C. 3056(a) To our knowledge, no significant objections have\n4/ In 1950 testimony before the Labor-Federal Security Appropriations Sub-\ncommittee of the House Appropriations Committee indicated that, although\nit was not at the time prescribed by the Secret Service's statute, the\nVice President and certain foreign dignitaries were receiving Secret Service\nprotection. (Hearings before the House Subcommittee on Labor-Federal\nSecurity Appropriations on the Second Supplemental Appropriations Bill\nfor 1951, 81st Cong., 2nd Sess., p. 175 (1950).) Although Mr. Truman\nhad a Secret Service detail as Vice President and Vice President Wallace\nwas guarded on a few occasions, the statute was not amended to specifically\nauthorize the Secret Service to protect the Vice President until 1951.\nIn September 1972 it was formally reported to the Treasury subcommittee\nof the House Appropriations Committee that Secret Service protection was\nbeing provided to Senator Edward Kennedy, although he was not a candidate\nin the 1972 Presidential Campaign, \"by direction of the President, pursuant\nto the inherent powers of the President.\" (Hearings before the House\nSubcommittee on the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government\nAppropriations on the Supplemental Appropriation Bill, 1973, 92nd Cong.,\n2nd Sess., p. 1058 (1972).) In March, 1971, it was reported to the same\nsubcommittee that, \"at the direction of the President,\" the Secret Service\nhad during 1970, prior to enactment of legislation authorizing such, pro-\ntected numerous visiting foreign dignitaries. (Hearings before the House\nSubcommittee on the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government\nAppropriations on Appropriations for 1972, 92nd Cong., 1st Sess., PP. 222,\n224 (1971).) The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee with responsibility\nfor the Treasury Department was also apprised of both of these protective\nassignments. (Hearings before the Senate Subcommittee on the Treasury,\nU.S. Postal Service and General Government Appropriations on H.R. 9590,\n93rd Cong., 1st Sess., p. 462 (1973); and, Hearings before the Senate\nSubcommittee on the Treasury, U.S. Postal Service and General Government\nAppropriations on H.R. 9271, 92nd Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 475-476 (1971).)\nIn 1969 the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Deficiencies and\nSupplementals heard testimony that the President, with no specific\nlegislative authority, had ordered Secret Service protection for Governor\nRockefeller during an official trip to Latin America. (Hearings before\nthe Senate Subcommittee on Deficiencies and Supplemental Appropriations\non H.R. 11400, 91st Cong., 1st Sess., P. 1125 (1968).)\nLIBRARY GERALD FORD\n- 6 -\never been raised in connection with any protective mission other than that\ninvolving former Vice President Agnew in the recent past. 5/ In pertinent\nsituations lack of Congressional objection to a long-standing practice of the\nExecutive has been interpreted as supporting the proposition that such\npractice is impliedly authorized. United States V. Midwest Oil Company, 236\nU.S. 459 (1915).\nAlthough no statute specifically authorizing such conduct was in\nexistence, the Supreme Court recognized the authority of the President to\nassign a deputy Federal marshal to protect a U.S. Supreme Court Justice whose\nlife had been threatened as part of the Executive's constitutional duty to\n\"take care that the laws be faithfully executed\", (U.S. Const. Art. II, §3)\nIn re Neagle, 135 U.S. 1 (1890). We believe that such inherent Presidential\nauthority to direct Federal officers to provide protection where it is in\nthe public interest supports the view that the statute enumerating the\ngeneral powers of the Secret Service was not intended to be exclusive.\n5/ The issue of whether, and under what circumstances, the Secret Service\nhas legal authority to provide protection beyond that specifically set\nforth in 18 U.S.C. 3056(a) has never been considered by any court of\nthe United States. In fact, before the Comptroller General set forth\nhis recent opinion with respect to former Vice President Agnew's\nprotection, an opinion which limited itself only to the case of\nMr. Agnew and expressed no other conclusions, no views, to Treasury's\nknowledge, had ever been expressed formally by any agency of the\nUnited States that Secret Service protection in circumstances other\nthan those specifically set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3056(a) might be with-\nout authority of law.\nFORD : SERALD LIBRARY\n- 7 -\nSuch an assignment of Executive branch personnel should, because of the\nnecessity to implement protection in certain situations, be viewed as\nanalogous to other unspecified Presidential powers, such as that to remove\nExecutive officials upheld by the Supreme Court in Myers V. United States,\n272 U.S. 52 (1926).\n****\nThere is a second type of situation, namely that in which Secret\nService protection has been afforded without Presidential directive,\ngenerally on the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury, to individuals\nnot within those categories specifically set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3056(a).\nIn accordance with the comments made at the Senate Appropriations Committee\nhearing on February 27th, we are discussing in this section of the memorandum\nonly the protection being accorded to the Secretary and the current Deputy\nSecretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of State.\nThe deployment of security personnel is an executive function essential\nto the management of a department and the performance of its business. Thus,\nit is reasonable that, if considered necessary in view of demonstrable\nevidence of risk, the Secretary and the current Deputy Secretary of the\nTreasury be assigned an appropriate number of professionally trained Secret\nService agents. Section 301 of 5 U.S.C. provides, in part, that \"the head\nof an Executive department or military department may prescribe regulations\nfor the government of his department, the conduct of its employees, the\ndistribution and performance of its business.\n\" Reorganization Plan 26\nB.\nFORD\nof 1950 (5 U.S.C. App., p. 544) transferred all duties and functions\nof\nGERA\nLIBRARY\n- 8 -\nemployees of the Department of the Treasury, including those of the Secret\nService, to the Secretary. Accordingly, the Secretary is empowered by law\nto supervise and direct the activities of Secret Service officers. Such\nofficers, like all other Treasury personnel, could be assigned to render him\ndirect assistance to carry out any Treasury responsibilities. In the past,\nin response to a White House request, the Secretary has deployed Secret Service\nofficers as sky marshals to protect commercial aircraft against hijacking\nThe Secret Service has trained security personnel from other departments so\nthat they could protect their own department heads. 8/ The Secret Service\nalso at times conducts investigations for Treasury bureaus which do not\nhave their own investigative capabilities. 9/ None of these functions are\nspecifically set out in 18 U.S.C. 3056(a). Each activity has been discussed\nin appropriation hearings before Congress and none has been criticized as\nbeyond the Service's authority as set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3056(a).\nDuring World War II Secretary Morgenthau was supplied a Secret Service\ndetail to insure his personal safety. Given the present national environment\nand evidence of specific risks, it seems reasonable to the Treasury\n6/ See also section 5 of P.L. 91-651 (1971) in which Congress specifically\nmade 18 U.S.C. 3056, as amended, subject to Reorganization Plan 26.\n7/ Hearings before the House Subcommittee on Treasury, Post Office and\nGeneral Appropriations on Appropriations for 1972, 92nd Cong., 1st Sess.,\npp. 223, 262-263 (1971).\nHearings before the House Subcommittee on the Treasury, Postal Service,\nand General Government Appropriations on Appropriations for Fiscal Year\n1974, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess., Part I, p. 392 (1973).\nHearings before the House Subcommittee on Treasury - Post Office Departments\nAppropriations on Appropriations for 1958, 85th Cong., 1st Sess., PP. 533-534\n(1957) (personnel investigations for the Bureau of Engraving and Printing,\nBureau of the Mint, Bureau of Public Debt, etc.).\nLIBRARY GERALD P. FORD\n- 9 -\nthat the Secretary and the current Deputy Secretary of the Department also\nbe assigned Secret Service agents who have been trained to provide personal\nprotection.\nFinally, in addition to authorizing Secret Service protection for the\ntwo senior officials in the Treasury Department, the Secretary of the Treasury\nhas, in response to a request from Secretary of State Kissinger, directed the\nSecret Service to protect him. Such action is justified under the Economy\nAct of 1932, as amended, 31 U.S.C. 686. The Department of State is authorized\nunder 22 U.S.C. 2666 to provide protective services for the Secretary of\nState, and funds have been appropriated for that purpose. Government\nagencies are authorized under 31 U.S.C. 686 to use available funds to procure\nservices from other government agencies. Pursuant to this authority, the\nDepartment of State has determined that it is in the interest of the govern-\nment to utilize the Secret Service to provide protection, on a partially\nreimbursable basis, for the Secretary of State.\n****\nFor the reasons stated above, the Treasury believes that the basic\nprotective statute is not exclusive and that additional Secret Service pro-\ntection may be directed in cases not specifically covered by the statute\nwhere the risk of harm and the public interest justify such protection.\nRecently this proposition has been questioned with respect to at least\none protective detail not covered by the statute. It may be desirable to\nBEEN R. FORD THERE\n- 10 -\nconsider again broadening the protective statute to cover additional\nsituations where protection is warranted. If this view is accepted,\nfurther consideration will be given to this matter by the Treasury with a\nview to developing specific legislative proposals.\nR.\nGENETO\nFORD\nLISEARY\n10/10/74\nTo:\nMr. Buchen\nFrom: Jay\nConcerning the attached memo, I\ndirect your attention to paragraph 1 dealing\nwith Presidential appointment records.\nInquiries about these appointments are\nreferred to Mrs. Fry. We are not told\nof the standard she applies in releasing\nthis information.\nGERALD LIBRARY $ FORD\nDEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY\nUNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20223\nOFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR\nOctober 7, 1974\nTO\n:\nHonorable Philip W. Buchen\nCounsel to the President\nThe White House\nFROM\n:\nMr. Clinton J. Hill\nAssistant Director\nProtective Forces\nSUBJECT\n:\nWhite House Appointments\nWe would like to update our files relative to White House appoint-\nment inquiries received by the Executive Protective Service from\nWhite House Staff members.\nDuring the Nixon Administration the following policy was implemented\nwith the White House Legal Counsel for handling these inquiries.\nAny inquiries received by the Executive Protective\nService Officers regarding previously cleared appoint-\nments to the White House Complex were referred to the\nChief's Office, Executive Protective Service. These\ninquiries were then handled in the following manner:\n1.\nInquiries made by White House Staff offices\nrequesting information concerning appointments\ninvolving other (second party) White House\nOffices were referred to the White House Legal\nCounsel for approval. If approved by the\nLegal Counsel, the Office of the Chief would\nfurnish the information requested, if available.\nPresidential appointment records accumulated\ndaily by the Executive Protective Service are\nturned over at the end of each month to Mrs.\nGertrude Brown Fry, Special Files Unit, Old\nExecutive Office Building. Inquiries concerning\nthese appointments are referred to Mrs. Fry.\nB.\nFORD\nGERALD\nLIBRARY\n-2-\n2.\nInformation requested by Staff members concerning\nappointments to their (first party) individual\noffice was furnished by the Office of the Chief,\nif available.\nYour concurrence and/or comments on this matter is requested in\norder to update our files and to insure efficient handling of\nthis situation.\nClinton JAir\nClinton J. Hill\nBERALD R. FORD LIBRANA\nTHE\nDEPARTMENT THE TREASURY\nTHE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20220\n1789\nASSISTANT SECRETARY\nsafling\nOctober 11, 1974\nMEMORANDUM FOR: The Honorable Donald Rumsfeld\nAssistant to the President\nThe Honorable Philip W. Buchen\nCounsel to the President\nFROM:\nDavid R. Macdonald\noon\nAssistant Secretary (Enforcement,\nOperations, and Tariff Affairs)\nSUBJECT:\nIncident Aboard Kissinger Aircraft\nAs Secretary Kissinger's plane was taxiing to\nthe runway in Cairo today enroute to Damascus, a Uzi\nmachine gun encased for storage discharged one round,\nwhich ricocheted and struck Special Agent Bothe, of\nthe Kissinger protective detail, on the arm and fore-\nhead. The wounds were superficial. As of now, the\nreason for the discharge is not known. The Uzi must\nhave been cocked with a round in the chamber, which\nis, of course, contrary to standard procedure. The\nidentity of the person who packed the Uzi is not now\nknown.\nYou will be advised as soon as additional\ninformation is available.\ni\nFORD\nGERALD\nLIBRARY\nOF\nDEPARTMENT THE THE TREASURY\nTHE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY\n1789\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20220\nASSISTANT SECRETARY\nOctober 11, 1974\nMEMORANDUM FOR: The Honorable Donald Rumsfeld\nAssistant to the President\nThe Honorable Philip W. Buchen\nCounsel to the President\nFROM:\nDavid R. Macdonald?\nAssistant Secretary (Enforcement,\nOperations, and Tariff Affairs)\nSUBJECT:\nInvestigatory Report -- Kissinger\nAircraft Incident\nAt Secretary Simon's request and following\nup on my prior memo, attached is the first\ninvestigatory report of the weapon incident in\nconnection with Secretary Kissinger's aircraft.\nApparently Special Agent Bothe had loaded the\nweapon and taped the grip safety, which is the\nfinal method of preventing accidental discharge.\nInvestigation has commenced, but cannot be\ncompleted prior to Secretary Kissinger's return\non October 16.\nAttachment\n:\n(1)\nFORD\nLIBRAR\nITEM WITHDRAWAL SHEET\nWITHDRAWAL ID 01234\nCollection/Series/Folder ID\n: 001900560\nReason for Withdrawal\n:\nNS, National security restriction\nType of Material\n:\nCAB, Cable (s)\nCreator's Name\n:\nSecret Service Damascus\nReceiver's Name\n:\nSecret Service Headquarters\nDescription\n:\nInvestigation of Weapon Incident.\nCreation Date\n: 10/11/1974\nVolume (pages)\n: 2\nDate Withdrawn\n: 06/23/1988\nI\nProtection of\nKennedy\nchildren\nFORD is LIBRARY GERALD\nDepartment\nto, Philip Buchen\nof the Treasury\nUnder Secretary\nroom\ndate, 10/17\ntoa show\nfiles\nPhil:\nAttached is a copy of the letter\nwhich we sent in reply to the letters\nthat have been received concerning\nthe Secret Service protection of the\nKennedy children.\nEdward SP Schmults\nAttachment\nRessofile. file.\nLIBRARY GERALD s. FORD\nEdward C. Schmults\nroom 3430\next. 5363\nOF\nDEPARTMENT THE 1789 TREASURY\nTHE\nTHE UNDER SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20220\nOCT 17 1974\nDear Mr. McGregor:\nPhilip W. Buchen has asked me to acknowledge and\nthank you for your letter of September 27, regarding\nSecret Service protection that was provided recently for\na seven-day period for certain of the children of the\nlate Senator Robert Kennedy in the Boston area. A child\nof Mrs. Patricia Kennedy Lawford who is a roommate of one\nof the Kennedy children was also protected for a short\ntime during that period.\nProtection was requested because of a kidnap threat\nagainst the children. After a review by the Secret\nService and Treasury of the facts and consultation by\nTreasury with the White House, Secretary Simon ordered\nprotection.\nAlthough the protection extended was not specifically\nauthorized by the protective statute, Section 3056 (a) of\nTitle 18 of the U.S. Code, the statute itself is not\nregarded as exclusive. There exists Executive authority\nto provide temporary Secret Service protection in certain\nemergency situations where such action is reasonable and\nin the public interest. We at Treasury regarded the\nfactual circumstances of this case as falling within these\ncriteria.\nI appreciate your concerns about providing the Secret\nService protection in question. While we feel that the\naction which was taken was warranted, we understand how\nyou can differ with the judgment that was made.\nSincerely,\nEdward\nEdward C. Schmults\nMr. Rodney McGregor\n310 Arballo Drive\nSan Francisco, California 94132\nFORD is LIBRARY\nThursday 9/26/74\n11:50 Attached are the copies sent over by Mr. Schmults'\noffice -- as requested. (Temporary Secret Service\nprotection for Kennedy children)\nLIBRARY GERALD F. FORD\nDEPARTMENT OF THE\nTHE 1789 TREASURY\nTHE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY\nWASHINGTON\nSEP 241974\nDear Mr. Buchen:\nThis is to confirm the telephone conversation of\nSeptember 13 between yourself and Under Secretary\nSchmults with regard to the kidnap threat against the\nKennedy children in the Boston area. Protection was\nrequested by Mrs. Ethel Kennedy.\nThe Secret Service has advised me on the after-\nnoon of September 20 that the threat had been aborted.\nProtection was accordingly terminated, after notifi-\ncation to Mrs. Kennedy, on that date.\nThe Secret Service has requested for their files\nmemoranda of approval from you to the Secretary of the\nTreasury and from me to Director Knight. Attached is\na memorandum for your signature indicating such approval.\nWith kind regards,\nSincerely yours,\n(Signed) Bill Simon\nWilliam E. Simon\nThe Honorable\nPhilip W. Buchen\nCounsel to the President\nThe White House\nWashington, D.C. 20500\nLISEASE GERALD ? FORD\nMEMORANDUM FOR: William E. Simon\nSecretary of the Treasury\nFROM:\nPhilip W. Buchen\nCounsel to the President\nSUBJECT:\nTemporary Secret Service Protection\nof Seven (7) Kennedy Children\nThis is to confirm that the Secret Service\nprotection of the following Kennedy children was\nauthorized on September 13, 1974, on a temporary basis\npending resolution of a threat received to kidnap one\nof the Kennedy children in the Boston area:\nJoseph Kennedy\nKerry Kennedy\nDavid Kennedy\nCourtney Kennedy\nRobert Kennedy\nChristopher Lawford\nMichael Kennedy\nI understand that the protection was terminated on\nSeptember 20, 1974, following receipt of advice that\nthe threat had been aborted.\nGEBALD LIBRADA ? FORD\nHWCohen:chl:9/20/74:ECSchmu1ts:mk:9/23/74\nMEMORANDUM\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 25, 1974\nMEMORANDUM TO PHIL BUCHEN\nFROM:\nJOHN W. HUSHEN\nSUBJECT:\nSecret Service Protection of Ethel Kennedy's Children\nJoe Spear of the Jack Anderson column is aware of the fact that Secret\nService was used to protect Ethel Kennedy's children following the\nkidnap threat. He says he has talked to Bill Simon, Treasury, who\nsaid that he passed the question on to you as to the authority to order\nthe protection.\nSpear's questions are:\n1. Who made the decision?\n2. Was the President actually aware of the decision?\n3. What were the considerations for using the Secret Service,\nwhich appears to be a violation of the law?\nThe Anderson column regarding this matter will be sent out about noon\ntomorrow (Thursday), so if we are going to have any response, I have\nto get back before then. (Phone: 483-1442)\nBERRLO FORD LIBRARY\nOF\nTHE TREASURY THE\nTHE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY\nWASHINGTON 20220\n1789\nSEP 24 1974\nDear Mr. Buchen:\nThis is to confirm the telephone conversation of\nSeptember 13 between yourself and Under Secretary\nSchmults with regard to the kidnap threat against the\nKennedy children in the Boston area. Protection was\nrequested by Mrs. Ethel Kennedy.\nThe Secret Service has advised me on the after-\nnoon of September 20 that the threat had been aborted.\nProtection was accordingly terminated, after notifi-\ncation to Mrs. Kennedy, on that date.\nThe Secret Service has requested for their files\nmemoranda of approval from you to the Secretary of the\nTreasury and from me to Director Knight. Attached is\na memorandum for your signature indicating such approval.\nWith kind regards,\nSincerely yours,\nBiller William E. Simon\nThe Honorable\nPhilip W. Buchen\nCounsel to the President\nThe White House\nWashington, D.C. 20500\nGERALD LIBRARY FORD\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMEMORANDUM FOR: William E. Simon\nSecretary of the Treasury\nFROM:\nPhilip W. Buchen\nCounsel to the President\nSUBJECT:\nTemporary Secret Service Protection\nof Seven (7) Kennedy Children\nThis is to confirm that the Secret Service\nprotection of the following Kennedy children was\nauthorized on September 13, 1974, on a temporary basis\npending resolution of a threat received to kidnap one\nof the Kennedy children in the Boston area:\nJoseph Kennedy\nKerry Kennedy\nDavid Kennedy\nCourtney Kennedy\nRobert Kennedy\nChristopher Lawford\nMichael Kennedy\nI understand that the protection was terminated on\nSeptember 20, 1974, following receipt of advice that\nthe threat had been aborted.\nBLEALB FORD LIBRARY\nTHE\nTREASURY TRI 183\nOFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY\n1789\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20220\nSeptember 16, 1974\nMEMORANDUM FOR: HONORABLE PHILIP W. BUCHEN\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nEdward C. Schmults\nUnder Secretary\nas\nDavid R. Macdonald\nDRM\nAssistant Secretary (Enforcement,\nOperations, and Tariff Affairs)\nSUBJECT:\nStatus Report regarding Protection\nof Ethel Kennedy's Children\nAs a result of our discussions last week, the\nSecret Service determined that some protection\nshould be accorded on an emergency basis to six of\nthe children of Robert Kennedy. We are now in the\nprocess of ascertaining and providing for alterna-\ntive security arrangements for Mrs. Kennedy, in\norder that the Secret Service agents protecting\nthe children may be withdrawn.\nFORD & LIBRARY QERALD\nSEPARTMENT OF THE\nTHE 1789 TREASURY\nOFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20220\nSeptember 16, 1974\nMEMORANDUM FOR: HONORABLE PHILIP W. BUCHEN\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nEdward C. Schmults\nUnder Secretary /S/\nDavid R. Macdonald /s/David R. Macdonald\nAssistant Secretary (Enforcement,\nOperations, and Tariff Affairs)\nSUBJECT:\nStatus Report regarding Protection\nof Ethel Kennedy's Children\nAs a result of our discussions last week, the\nSecret Service determined that some protection\nshould be accorded on an emergency basis to six of\nthe children of Robert Kennedy. We are now in the\nprocess of ascertaining and providing for alterna-\ntive security arrangements for Mrs. Kennedy, in\norder that the Secret Service agents protecting\nthe children may be withdrawn.\nFORD i LIBRARY QERALD\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nOctober 24, 1974\ndraft\ncomputer over your\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nPHIL BUCHEN\nJACK MARSH\nno.\nFROM:\nBILL CASSELMAN\nMarty Hoffman has requested OMB approval of the attached\nletter to Congressman Jack Brooks commenting on\nH.R. 11499, as recently reported by House Judiciary Sub-\ncommittee No. 2 (Donohue). This bill deals with\nexpenditures for Secret Service protection on other than\ngovernment property. As modified, neither Stan Ebner,\nLynn May (Domestic Council) nor I have an objection to the\nletter.\nYou should be aware that by sending this letter, the\nAdministration will be continuing a major policy dispute\nbetween DOD and Treasury over a relatively minor issue -\nreimbursement by Secret Service for security expenditures\nof other agencies made upon request of the Secret Service.\nBoth agencies will likely try to get a policy decision rendered\nat the highest possible level. Even so, DOD should have an\nopportunity to express their views to the Committee.\nSecret Service, with White House/OMB approval, recently\ntestified that the issue of reimbursement was under study\nwithin the Executive Office of the President. It is necessary\ntherefore that we eventually go beyond allowing DOD to send\nthis letter stating their views and develop an Administration\nposition with respect to reimbursement. This is an issue\nwhere the Administration can take the initiative. OMB\nshould be requested to identify the budget figures involved\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\n- 2 -\nin this issue in order that the policy can eventually be\ndetermined. Whatever the final decision is to be, it\ncan be implemented in the budget to be submitted to\nCongress in January.\nSecret Service's strongest argument is that if their\nbudget were to reflect all such security expenditures\nthat they would be more subject to political pressures\nfor budget cuts. This is obviously not a position that\ncould be represented to the Congress. On the other\nhand, DOD's position is based on the accepted manage-\nment principle derived from the Economy Act. When,\nas now, economic considerations dictate against potentially\nwasteful arrangements, exceptions to the general rule\nshould be made only in particularly compelling circum-\nstances. While their budget might substantially increase\nas a result of the DOD approach, the ability of the\nSecret Service to provide effective security protection\nwould not be impaired.\nDOD is particularly anxious for some word on the status of\ntheir letter.\ncc:\nStan Ebner\nMr. Areeda\nMr. Lazarus\nLynn May\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\nBoth of these\nalready in file\njemp GENAL R. FORD LIBITARY\nEPS\nOctober 29, 1974\nFOR:\nH. Stuart Knight\nDirector, Secret Service\nFROM:\nPhilip W. Buchen\nSUBJECT: White House Security Fund\nI have received a copy of a memorandum from Chief Drescher,\nExecutive Protective Service, to Clinton Hill, Assistant Director\nProtective Forces, dated October 3, 1974, in which it is requested\nthat necessary steps be taken to dissolve the White House Security\nFund. I am also in receipt of a memorandum from Mr. Hill to\nme, as Counsel, dated October 21, 1974, pointing out that under\nSection IX of the By-Laws of the White House Security Fund, the\nCounsel to the President must agree to the dissolution of this Fund.\nAs a member of the committee, referred to in Section IX of the\nBy-Laws of the White House Security Fund, this is to inform you\nthat I agree and concur in the decision to dissolve the Fund and\ntransfer any remaining moneys, after the payment of any debts,\nto Heroes Incorporated.\nPWB:JF:em\nFORDO : GERALD Library\nOctober 29, 1974\nFOR:\nH. Stuart Knight\nDirector, Secret Service\nFROM:\nPhilip W. Buchen\nSUBJECT: White House Security Fund\nI have received a copy of a memorandum from Chief Drescher,\nExecutive Protective Service, to Clinton Hill, Assistant Director\nProtective Forces, dated October 3, 1974, in which it is requested\nthat necessary steps be taken to dissolve the White House Security\nFund. I am also in receipt of a memorandum from Mr. Hill to\nme, as Counsel, dated October 21, 1974, pointing out that under\nSection IX of the By-Laws of the White House Security Fund, the\nCounsel to the President must agree to the dissolution of this Fund.\nAs a member of the committee, referred to in Section IX of the\nBy-Laws of the White House Security Fund, this is to inform you\nthat I agree and concur in the decision to dissolve the Fund and\ntransfer any remaining moneys, after the payment of any debts,\nto Heroes Incorporated.\nPWB:JF:em\nLIBRARY GERALD R. FOND\nMEMORANDUM\nOF CALL\nTO:\nEvo\nYOU WERE CALLED BY-\nYOU WERE VISITED BY-\nOF (Organization)\nMiss Lusky\nSecret Soo\nPHONE NO.\nPLEASE CALL\nCODE/EXT.\n2376\nWILL CALL AGAIN\nIS WAITING TO SEE YOU\nRETURNED YOUR CALL\nWISHES AN APPOINTMENT\nMESSAGE\nLIBRARY GERALD R. FORD\nRECEIVED BY\nDATE\nTIME\nSTANDARD FORM 63\nGPO :1969-c48-16-8034171 11/1 332-389\n0940\n63-108\nREVISED AUGUST 1967\nGSA FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.6\nG/E\nI\nQuert\nor, 18\nA He 2\nI\n1\nt\nFORD is LIBRARY\nFact\n/ 6,\nthy\nc\nTea\ncrz\nhm 23\nMEOR\nGERALD LIBRARY 4. FORD\n32uoH STIHW 3HT\nE Na MOTORINEAN - returned\nto Mr Snow\nDo you have\nyou don't\na copy BERALD then R. FORD LIBRARY\nwant this\nEm\nOne copy of this form must\nDATE OF DISPATCH\nDEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY\nremain affixed to document(s)\nCLASSIFIED DOCUMENT\ntransmitted herewith.\nOct. 29, 1974\nDATE RECEIVED\nSUSPENSE DATE\nLOG NO.\nACCOUNTABILITY RECORD\nSECTION A- GENERAL\nTO:\nFROM:\nPhilip W. Buchen\nRobert R. Snow\nCounsel to the President\nSpecial Agent in Charge\nTechnical Security Division\nRm. 23, Old Exec. Ofc. Bldg.\nCONTROL OR\nCLASSIFI-\nDATE OF\nDESCRIPTION (Identify Items such as Report, Letter, Memo. Etc.\nNO. OF\nFILE NO.\nDOCUMENT\nUnclassified Subject or Short Title, Copy Number and Number of\nORIGINATOR\nCATION\nCOPIES\nAttachments)\nSS-160-74-\nSecret\n10/29/74\nPosition Paper: Escort of USSS Dir.,\n1\n279\npersonnel by military while\nUSSS\n(cy 2 of 5)\nworking at Camp David\nSECTION B - INTERNAL ROUTING\nTO\nCOPY\nDATE\nPRINTED NAME\nSIGNATURE\nNO.\n1.\n2.\n3.\n4.\n5.\nSECTION C — REPRODUCTION AUTHORITY\nNO. OF COPIES\nAUTHORIZED BY\nSIGNATURE\nREPRODUCED\nDATE\n(Printed or typed name)\nSECTION D - DESTRUCTION CERTIFICATE\nMATERIAL DESCRIBED HEREIN HAS BEEN (Check appropriate block):\nDESTRUCTION RECORD NO.\nPAGE OR COPY NO.\nDESTROYED\nTORN AND PLACED IN A CLASSIFIED WASTE CONTAINER (Burn bag)\nPRINTED NAME OF CERTIFYING/DESTRUCTION OFFICIAL\nSIGNATURE\nDATE\nPRINTED NAME OF WITNESSING OFFICIAL\nSIGNATURE\nDATE\nSECTION E - TRACER ACTION\nSIGNED COPY OF RECEIPT FOR MATERIAL DESCRIBED ABOVE HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED.\nPLEASE ACCOMPLISH APPROPRIATE SPACE IN SECTION F AND RETURN.\nDOCUMENT(S) HAVE NOT BEEN RECEIVED\nSECTION Day RECEIPT ACTION\nRECEIPT OF DOCUMENT(S) ACKNOWLEDGED\nJay (Typed I or FRench printed name) fathers\n11/4/74\n(Signature)\nREMARKS:\nLIBRARY\n(Date)\nTREASURY FORM NO. 2747\nReturn Original to Sender\nADMIN. CIR. NO. 242\n(SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE SIDE)\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\n11/7\nWASHINGTON\nTO:\nPHIL BUCHEN\nFROM: GEOFF SHEPARD\nFYI XXX\nCOMMENT\nFORD LIBRARY\nBucher\nEXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT\nF41\nOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20503\nNOV 1 1974\nMEMORANDUM FOR DWIGHT INK\nGeneral Services Administration\nSubject: Protection of the New Executive Office Building\nThis is to confirm the decision that responsibility for protecting the\nNew Executive Office Building (NEOB) will be transferred from the U.S.\nSecret Service to the General Services Administration for a period of\n30 days. In order to release Executive Protective Service personnel\nfor interim requirements in New York City in connection with activity at\nthe United Nations in the month of November, the General Services\nAdministration will begin guarding the NEOB at 8:00 a.m. Wednesday,\nNovember 6, 1974, and will maintain the same level of protection as\npreviously provided by the Secret Service.\nMrs. Velma Baldwin, Assistant to the Director for Administration will\nbe the OMB contact for working out the details of this interim transfer\nof protection responsibility.\n(signed) Wally\nWalter D. Scott\nAssociate Director for\nEconomics and Government\nGERALD LIBRARY FORD\nCC:\nEGG-GSA Files\nGSA chron\nDirector's Copy\nMr. Scott\nMr. Bray (2)\nMr. O'Neill\nMr. Shepard/\nMs. Velma Baldwin\nMr. Buchen\nreturn, Mr. Ambrust\nEGG:EArmbrust:sb 11/1/74\nSecret\nService\nTuesday 11/12/74\n7:50 One day recently, I had a call from Lee Garrick of the (612) 222-5011\nSt. Paul Dispatch saying that last Saturday a man came into\ntheir newsroom and left some information. Mentioned\na Charles A. Lindberg Memorial Research Center to be dedicated\nin St. Paul. Groundbreaking to be done by Governor\nWendell Anderson and the President ----- said he was Byron Eugene\nYoung, of Buck Unlimited Ltd. c/o Philip Buchen,\nI called Rustand's office and found nothing there concerning\na possible invitation,\nSuggested to Mr. Garrick he might contact Governor Anderson's\noffice; he already had.\nLater the same day a Sgt. Opheim of the St. Paul Police (612) 291-1111\ncalled to say that a manyhas been contacting their colleges\nExt. 330\nre a foundation of sorts -- I gave him the name of the\nabove person and he said that was the one.\nTold him\nwe had a previous call.\nI told him I would contact the\nSecret Service and have them call him.\nI gave Secret Service the numbers.\nFORD is LIBRARY GERATE\nDEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY\nUNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20223\nOFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR\n620.11\nNovember 14, 1974\nMEMORANDUM FOR : Philip Buchen\nCounsel to the President\nFROM\n: David H. Martin\nDHM\nLegal Counsel\nSUBJECT\n: Rental of the President's House in Alexandria\nBill Casselman called me this morning regarding the above\ncaptioned subject and requested a clarification of the Secret Service\nposition regarding the future use of the command post located there.\nApparently, the President has indicated that he may utilize this house\nas his residence in the future. Based on that information, the Secret\nService feels that the command post should not be physically altered into\na garage, but should remain as is for future utilization. As I under-\nstand it, the toilet facility, the walls and the rug would remain; the\nstove and refrigerator would be reclaimed by the General Services\nAdministration.\nAnother minor matter that has arisen and which I discussed\nwith Bill, is painting the walls and cleaning the rugs in the command\npost as requested by the realtor handling the leasing of the residence.\nWe do not feel that these matters fall within the authority or res-\nponsibility of the Secret Service. Further, in view of recent Congressional\ninterest in Secret Service expenditures of this nature and also the\nrequirement of Congressional appropriation committees for the Secret\nService to account for protective expenditures on a quarterly basis, we\nfeel that the Secret Service should not assume these expenses.\nIf I can be of further assistance, please call me at 964-8208,\nor Code 184, extension 8208.\nFORD\nGERALD\nLIBRARY\nMEMORANDUM\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nBor\nNovember 21, 1974\nFOR:\nPhilip W. Buchen\nFROM:\nJay T. French\nSUBJECT: Confidentiality of United States Secret Service Materials\nThe Freedom of Information Act, Section 552 of title 5, provides ample\ngrounds to refuse to disclose information concerning measures taken\nby the Secret Service to protect the President pursuant to Section 3056\nof title 18. In particular, of the nine exemptions from disclosure\nin the law, four would seem appropriate to claim in this instance.\nThey are set forth below:\n1) matters specifically required by Executive order to be kept\nsecret in the interest of the national defense or foreign policy;\n2) matters related solely to the internal personnel rules and\npractices of an agency;\n3) inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which\nwould not be available by law to a party other than an agency\nin litigation with the agency; or\n4) investigatory files compiled for law enforcement purposes\nexcept to the extent available by law to a party other than an\nagency.\nIn checking with Secret Service, I learned that some materials are\nclassified \"confidential. \" The first exemption could be claimed to\nwithhold these materials classified under Executive Order No. 11652,\nMarch 8, 1972, as amended by Executive Order No. 11714, April 24, 1973.\nGERALD LIBRARY ? FORD\n2\nThe second exemption relating solely to the internal personnel rules and\npractices of any agency, is \"meant to relate to those matters which are\nfor the guidance of agency personnel only, including internal rules and\npractices which cannot be disclosed to the public without substantial\nprejudice to the effective performance of a significant agency function. 11\nAttorney General's memorandum on the Public Information section\nof the Administrative Procedure Act, United States Department of\nJustice, June 1967. A great many Secret Service materials would\nseem to be protected from disclosure by this clause.\nThe third exemption referring to certain memorandums or letters\ngenerally applies to findings and recommendations prepared by a\nsubordinate in order to inform and advise a superior. This exemption\nshould be helpful, as well as the fourth exemption dealing with investi-\ngatory files. As part of its protection duty, the Secret Service does\nperform investigations. The results of these investigations would not\nhave to be disclosed.\nExecutive privilege could also be advanced as a reason for refusing to\ndisclose. Under Section 3056 of title 18, the Secret Service is directed\nto protect foreign Heads of State and government. Our national\nsecurity is directly effected by the success with which we carry out\neach such mission. Disclosure of protective measures used to protect\nthe President of the United States would certainly jeopardize the similar\nprotection provided to these Heads of State and government. However,\nexecutive privilege must be specifically invoked by the government, and\nthere is authority that it is only a valid defense when expressly invoked.\nSoucie V. David, 1971, 448 F 2d 1067, 145 U.S. App. D. C. 144.\nThis memorandum is intentionally brief. I will be pleased to expand it\nin whole or in part.\nFORD LIBRARY\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nThought you would\nle interes ted in\nthe six (6) reasons\nfor refusing to\ndisclose in the\nForcade Case. FORD LIBRARY\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\nTHOMAS FORCADE\n)\nand ROBERT SHERRILL,\n)\n)\nPlaintiffs,\n)\n)\nV.\n)\nCivil Action No. 1258-73\n)\nH. STUART KNIGHT, et al.,\n)\n)\nDefendants.\n)\n)\nMEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN\nSUP-ORT OF DEFENDANTS\" MOTION FOR A\nSTAY OF DISCOVERY PENDING DISPOSITION\nOF DEFENDANTS' PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS\nOR FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS, OR,\nIN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY\nJUDGMENT AND PLAINTIFFS' PENDING\nMOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT\nStatement\nPlaintiffs were summarily denied White House press passes on\nthe ground that they constitute a potential threat to the physical\nsafety of the President. Following an unsuccessful attempt,\nadministratively, under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C.\n$552, to obtain all records, orders and opinions stating the reasons\nfor the denials of the press passes, plaintiffs filed this action\nseeking an order of this Court restraining the defendants from\ncontinuing to refuse to grant the plaintiffs accreditation as\njournalists to attend White House press conferences and briefings.\nAfter the defendants answered the Complaint, the plaintiffs\ncommenced discovery serving numerous interrogatories on the\ndefendants and requesting the production of numerous documents.\nThe defendants answered in part and objected in part to the\ninterrogatories and produced certain of the documents and objected\nto the production of others.\nPlaintiffs thereafter moved for summary judgment, or, in the\nalternative, for an order compelling discovery. The defendants\nFORD : LIBRARY\nhave moved for dismissal of the action or for judgment on the\npleadings, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment; and have\nseparately moved for a stay of all pending discovery pending the\nCourt's ruling on plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and\ndefendants' alternative motion to dismiss or for judgment on the\npleadings or for summary judgment.\n-2-\nBERRA FORD LIBRARY\nDiscussion\nThis action presents the legal issue of whether the defendants\nmay summarily deny White House press accreditation without a hearing\nand without advice as to the specific grounds for exclusion to\njournalists who are determined after a Secret Service investigation\nto constitute a potential threat to the physical safety of the Presi-\ndent and/or members of his immediate family.\nThe defendants' denial action was made ex parte. There has, of\ncourse, been no confrontation or cross-examination of witnesses.\nThere was no \"case adjudication\" within the meaning of 5 U.S.C.\n$552 (a) (2) (A)\nThere are no published guidance criteria for the application of\ndefendants' standard of denying press accreditation to anyone deemed\nto constitute a potential threat to the physical safety of the\nPresident. Here, in accordance with its established practice, the\nSecret Service, on a case-by-case basis, made its determination,\nbased on its experience and expertise in protective matters, as to\nwhether plaintiffs as applicants for a press pass might be a threat\nto the physical security of the President or his immediate family.\nTo ascertain the factual basis for the defendants' denial\naction and to ascertain, empirically, the factors considered by the\ndefendants in denying White House press accreditation, plaintiffs\naddressed numerous interrogatories to the defendants and requested\nthat they produce numerous documents.\nThe defendants' objections to plaintiffs' requested discovery,\nwhich are incorporated herein by reference, fall into the following\nmajor categories:\n1. Plaintiffs are not entitled to adjudicate the denial to\nthem of White House press accreditation and they lack standing to\nrequest information concerning denial actions, either as to them-\nselves or others.\n2. The investigative files and related reports and records of\nFOR\nthe Protective Intelligence Division of the United States BERAZU Secret\n-3-\nLIBRART\nService and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are privileged\nfrom discovery in the public interest in that disclosure would\nreveal sources of information and investigative techniques and\nprocedures thereby seriously impairing and jeopardizing statutory\nSecret Service and Bureau functions and the ability of such\nagencies to conduct future investigations.\n3. To the extent plaintiffs seek the production of intra-\nagency and inter-agency memoranda, such records are privileged\nfrom disclosure in the public interest to ensure the full and\nfrank exchange of advice and recommendations necessary to the\nperformance of agency functions.\n4. To the extent plaintiffs seek the production of records\nother than those pertaining to the denial of White House press\naccreditations to plaintiffs, the records sought are not relevant\nto the subject matter involved in the pending action and are,\ntherefore, not subject to discovery under Rule 26 (b) of the\nFederal Rules of Civil Procedure.\n5. To the extent plaintiffs seek the production of records\nother than those pertaining to the denial of White House press\naccreditations to plaintiffs, such records are privileged from\ndisclosure in the public interest to prevent prejudice to the\nrights of third parties.\n6. The records sought are not readily available. Neither\nthe White House Press Office nor the Secret Service maintains a\nseparate record of applications for accreditation which have been\ndenied and the reasons thereof. To locate such records would\nrequire a review of the files maintained in the White House-\ncentral files and the files maintained by the Secret Service\nOffice of Protective Intelligence. To produce the documents\nrequested would be unduly oppressive, expensive, and burdensome,\n-4-\nBERRED FORD LIBRARY\nand an unwarranted interference and disruption of the normal\nfunctions of the White House Press Office and Secret Service. In\nthe public interest, production should not be required in the\nabsence of an express showing by the plaintiffs of the necessity\nfor the expenditure of public funds for such records search.\nIn this connection the Secret Service estimates that it would\nrequire the expenditure of approximately $100,000 in man-hours to\ncompile the remaining information sought by the plaintiffs.\nThe defendants have suggested that the Court defer plain-\ntiffs' Rule 37 motion until the principal issue presented in\nplaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and defendants' alternative\nmotion to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings or for summary\njudgment is resolved.\nIf the defendants may summarily deny White House press\naccreditation without the issuance of charges or other procedures\nnormally attendant to adversary agency adjudications, which, in our\nview, they may, then none of the outstanding discovery which is the\nsubject of plaintiffs' Rule 37 motion is germane to this action.\nAnd if plaintiffs are entitled to judicial review of the denial\naction, the factual bases for denial actions are set forth in the\nin camera exhibit filed herewith in support of defendants' mction\nfor summary judgment, and further discovery in the matter is\nunnecessary to judicial review of the agency action for sufficiency\nof the evidence.\nThus the defendants' motion for a stay in no way prejudices\nthe plaintiffs, while at the same time it excuses the defendants\nfrom possibly unnecessary discovery. It has long been recognized\n-5-\nLIBRARY GERALD ? FOND\nthat where, as here, one or more principal issues may be deter-\nminative of the case, the Court may exercise its discretion to\ndelay discovery until the critical question has been decided. See,\nSinclair Refining V. Jenkins Petroleum Process Co., 289 U.S. 689,\n693-694 (1933) ; see also, Wright, Federal Courts (2nd Ed. 1970),\n$83. Courts have regularly exercised this discretion in a variety\nof circumstances to delay discovery pending resolution of the\ndispositive issue in the litigation, see, e.g., Polaroid Corp. V.\nCommerce International Co., 20 F.R.D. 394, 395 (S.D. N.Y. 1957),\nand upon the posture of the present case -- where a determination\nby the Court holding the defendants' summary denial action to be\nnon-reviewable would warrant dismissal of the action; or where,\nalternatively, a determination by the Court that there is\na sufficient and rational factual basis for the denial action would\nwarrant summary judgment for the defendants without more -- such a\nstay is imminently proper.\nThus, for the foregoing reasons, the defendants' motion for a\nstay of all present and future discovery in the present action\npending this Court's resolution of the plaintiffs' motion for\nsummary judgment and the defendants' alternative motion to dismiss\nor for judgment on the pleadings or for summary judgment should be\ngranted.\nRespectfully submitted,\n,\nHENRY E. PETERSEN\nAssistant Attorney General\nEDWARD S. CHRISTENBURY\nAttorney, Department of Justice\nBenjaniu CHannagan\nBENJAMIN C. FLANNAGAN\nAttorney, Department of Justice\nWashington, D.C. 20530\nTelephone: 202/739-3032\nAttorneys for Defendants\n-6-\nDERALD FOND LIBRARY\nCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\nI certify that on this date I served a copy of the foregoing\nMEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN\nSUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR A\nSTAY OF DISCOVERY PENDING DISPOSITION\nOF DEFENDANTS' PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS\nOR FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS, OR,\nIN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY\nJUDGMENT AND PLAINTIFFS' PENDING\nMOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT\nupon all plaintiffs by mailing copies thereof to the following\ncounsel of record.\nJOHN H. F. SHATTUCK, ESQUIRE\nMELVIN L. WULF, ESQUIRE\nJOEL M. GORA, ESQUIRE\nAmerican Civil Liberties Union\nFoundation\n22 East 40th Street\nNew York, New York 10016\nMS. HOPE EASTMAN\nAmerican Civil Liberties Union\nWashington Office\n410 First Street, S.E.\nWashington, D.C. 20003\nJune 21, 1974\nBENJAMIN C. FLANNAGAN\nAttorney, Department of Justice\nWashington, D.C. 20530\nTelephone: 202/739-3032\nFORD - BERALD LIGRARY\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\nTHOMAS FORCADE\n)\nand ROBERT SHERRILL,\n)\n)\nPlaintiffs,\n)\n)\nV.\n)\nCivil Action No. 1258-73\n)\nH. STUART KNIGHT, et al.,\n)\n)\nDefendants.\n)\n)\nORDER\nUpon consideration of defendants' motion for a stay of dis-\ncovery pending disposition by the Court of defendants' pending\nmotion to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, or, in the\nalternative, for summary judgment and plaintiffs' pending motion\nfor summary judgment, and it appearing to the Court that such\nmotion should be granted and discovery stayed pending resolution of\nthe issues presented in the respective motions to avoid the time\nand expense involved in any inquiry into matters which may prove to\nbe unnecessary, it is, therefore, by the Court this\nday\nof June, 1974:\nORDERED that defendants' motion for a stay of discovery pending\ndisposition by the Court of defendants' pending motion to dismiss or\n\"\nfor judgment on the pleadings, or, in the alternative, for summary\njudgment and plaintiffs' pending motion for summary judgment be, and\nthe same hereby is, granted; and it is\nFURTHER ORDERED that the time within which the defendants may\nrespond to plaintiffs' motion under Rule 37, F.R.Civ.P., for an\norder compelling discovery be, and the same hereby is, enlarged for\nthe duration of this stay and thereafter to a date to be fixed by\norder of the Court, should the action not be resolved upon the\nhearing on the respective motions of the parties aforesaid.\nUnited States District\nBERAAD Judge FORD OFIBRANI\nCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\nI certify that on this date I served a copy of the foregoing\nproposed ORDER\nupon all plaintiffs by mailing copies thereof to the following\ncounsel of record.\nJOHN H. F. SHATTUCK, ESQUIRE\nMELVIN L. WULF, ESQUIRE\nJOEL M. GORA, ESQUIRE\nAmerican Civil Liberties Union\nFoundation\n22 East 40th Street\nNew York, New York 10016\nMS. HOPE EASTMAN\nAmerican Civil Liberties Union\nWashington Office\n410 First Street, S.E.\nWashington, D.C. 20003\nJune 21, 1974\nBENJAMIN C. FLANNAGAN\nAttorney, Department of Justice\nWashington, D.C. 20530\nTelephone: 202/739-3032\n71\nDERALD FORD LIBRARY\nDEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY\nUNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE\nDIRECTOR\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20223\nNovember 26, 1974\nMEMORANDUM\nTo\n:\nDavid R. Macdonald\nAssistant Secretary\n(Enforcement, Operations and Tariff Affairs)\nSubject :\nFederal Office Building #7\nOn Wednesday, November 6, 1974, the Executive Protective Service\n(EPS) terminated coverage of Federal Office Building #7, and\ntransferred this responsibility to the Federal Protective Service\n(GSA) for a period of 30 days. This action was necessitated by\nincreased manpower demands in the Washington Metropolitan Area\nand additional EPS coverage for United Nations Missions in New\nYork City.\nEvaluating our present programs in light of monetary and manpower\nconstraints with respect to the EPS, we have determined that we\nare not in compliance with Title 3, Chapter 3, Section 202, U. S.\nCode, with respect to Federal Office Building #7. Specifically,\nthe EPS mandate intends only those buildings in which Presidential\noffices are located to be afforded EPS protection. Providing\nminimum security for Federal Office Building #7 requires 25 EPS\nOfficers at a cost of $345,633 annually. We do not feel that\nFederal Office Building #7 meets the criteria set forth in the\nU. S. Code. Attached for your consideration is the opinion of\nLegal Counsel on this subject.\nIn order to utilize existing EPS manpower in meeting its defined\nresponsibilities in connection with the protection of Foreign\nDiplomatic Missions, it is recommended that EPS not return to\nduty at Federal Office Building #7, and that Treasury pursue the\npermanent transfer of this responsibility to. the Federal Protective\nService (GSA).\nH.S. Knight\nDirector\nBERALD FUND LIBRARY\n-2-\nCC: Mr. Philip Buchen - White House Legal Counsel\nMr. Geoffrey C. Shepard - Domestic Counsel\nMr. David Bray - OMB\nFORD\nGERALD\nLIBRARY\nOPTIONAL FORM NO. 10\nMAY 1002 EDITION\nGSA FPMR (ii CFR) 101-11.5\nUNITED STATES GOVERNMENT\nor\nQ\nMemorandum\nU.S. Secret Service\ningl\nTO\n: AD - Protective Forces\nDATE:November 14, 1974\nFROM : Legal Counsel D/1721\n601.0\nSUBJECT: Title 3, U.S. Code, section 202, Executive Protective\nService\nOn October 23, 1974, your Office requested a legal\ninterpretation of subparagraph (2) and subparagraph (3)\nof section 202 of title 3, U. S. Code.\nSubparagraph (2) of this section states \"subject\nto the supervision of the Secretary of the Treasury, the\nExecutive Protective Service shall perform such duties\nas the Director, United States Secret Service, may prescribe\nin connection with the protection of the following: (2)\nany building in which Presidential offices are located;\".\nThe legislative history of Public Law 91-217 reveals no\ndiscussion regarding subparagraph (2). It is our opinion,\nhowever, that the Congressional intent of this section\nwas to include only those offices in the \"White House\ncomplex,\" the White House and the Old Executive Office\nBuilding; and places such as Camp David or a private\nresidence where the President might frequent on a regular\nbasis and where his offices might be located. We feel\nbuildings such as the New EOB where the President does\nnot have an office nor ever does regular business were not\nintended to be included within section 2; even though\nsuch offices are called \"Presidential offices\". As\nyou know, there are other locations, including 1800 G\nStreet, that have offices designated as Presidential\noffices. It would be stretching the literal wording\nand common sense interpretation of subparagraph (2) to\nincorporate within the meaning of section (2) all offices\nknown as \"Presidential offices\" not within the White House\ncomplex.\nSubparagraph (3) of Title III, section 202 reads as\nfollows: \"subject to the supervision of the Secretary\nof the Treasury, the Executive Protective Service shall\nperform such duties as the Director, United States Secret\nService, may prescribe in connection with the protection\nof the following: (3) the President and members of his\nimmediate family;\".\n&\nFORD\nBERALD\nLIBRARY\nBuy U.S. Savings Bonds Regularly on the Payroll Savings Plan\nThe question presented was whether the EPS may be\nutilized for protective functions not strictly related\nto the White House. The wording of Title 3, section 202\n(3) gives the Director some latitude and flexibility in\ndetermining what duties the EPS shall perform. We feel,\ntherefore, that the EPS could legally be utilized to\nperform a variety of protective functions connected with\nthe protection of the President and his family that\nappropriately should be performed by a uniformed officer.\nLIBRARY GEBALD FORD"
}