Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "4520878",
    "label": "Protection - Procurement of Property for the Protection of the President",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4520878"
}

{
    "id": "4520878",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4520878",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Protection - Procurement of Property for the Protection of the President",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4520878",
    "collections": [
        "Philip W. Buchen Files",
        "Philip Buchen's General Subject Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Department of Homeland Security. U.S. Secret Service. (2003 - )",
        "Presidential protection",
        "Legislation",
        "Presidential residences"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0019/574067/Batch0002/38-0019-f-4520878.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0019/574067/Batch0002/38-0019-f-4520878.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0019/574067/Batch0002/38-0019-f-4520878.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4520878",
    "naId": 4520878,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1974-12-01",
        "month": 12,
        "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-4520878.pdf",
    "mediaId": "58f149ef197e0c0e",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 57, folder \"Protection - Procurement of\nProperty for the Protection of the President\" of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R.\nFord Presidential 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 Gerald R. Ford donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain.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\nDate 8/23/74\nTO:\nPHIL BUCHEN\nFROM:\nJERRY H. JONES\nCould we have your comments\nand recommendation on the\nattached as soon as possible.\nThank you.\nJuly 1, 1974\nDear Bill:\nMany thanks for your letter of June 28th\nconcerning S. 3515, the measure you have\nintroduced which relates to the procure-\nment of property for the protection of the\nPresident and Vice President at private\nresidences.\nI will study this proposal carefully and\nwill be back in touch with you on my\ncomments soon.\nWith warmest regards,\nSincerely,\nWilliam E. Timmons\nAssistant to the President\nHonorable Bill Brock\nUnited States Senate\nWashington, D. C. 20510\nSec: Jerry Jones w/incoming to staff a reply on substance\nand return to WET.\nWET:SJH:ajb\nFORD i LIBRARY 076830\nBILL BROCK\nCOMMITTEES:\nTENNESSEE\nBANKING, HOUSING AND\nURBAN AFFAIRS\nGOVERNMENT OPERATIONS\nSPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING\nUnited States Senate\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20510\nJune 28, 1974\nJUL 1 1974\nMr. William E. Timmons\nAssistant to the President\nfor Legislative Affairs\nThe White House Office\nWashington, D.C. 20500\nDear Bill:\nEnclosed is a copy of S. 3515 along with my intro-\nductory remarks. The bill is simple, straightforward,\nand is based primarily on a report published by the\nGeneral Accounting Office (number B-155950).\nPlease analyze S. 3515 and the attached remarks and\nadvise me of your reaction to the bill. Any sugges-\ntions for improvement would, of course, be much\nappreciated.\nFor the full particulars on any aspect of this bill,\ncontact J.V. Crockett of my staff at 225-9583. Thank\nyou for your assistance.\nVery truly yours,\nSan\nBB:cnr\nEnclosures\nR.\nGERALD\nFORD\nLIBRARY\nCongressional Record\nUnited States\nof America\nPROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE\n93ᵈ\nCONGRESS, SECOND SESSION\nVol. 120\nWASHINGTON, TUESDAY, MAY 21, 1974\nNo. 71\nSenate\nStates will incur the appropriate ex-\nGSA is invited to do more than simply\nSTATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED\npense for providing security. I think this\nexecute Secret Service requesst, particularly\nBILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS\nis a fair and reasonable condition. We do\nwhen requests are vague or general.\nprovide for the President the White\nGAO believes that these weaknesses call\nPRESIDENTIAL SECURITY BILL\nHouse, as well as Camp David for relax-\nfor the appropriation of funds directly to\nBy Mr. BROCK:\nation. One additional house of his\nthe Secret Service to finance reimburse-\nchoice-making a total of three-seems\nments to other agencies for certain assist-\nS. 3515. A bill relating to the procure-\nance. In this respect, changes being made\nment of property for the protection of\nto me eminently reasonable. If one does\nin the financing of GSA public buildings ac-\nthe President and Vice President at pri-\nnot accept this position, then I think\ntivities will require that the Secret Service\nvate residences. Referred tó the Commit-\nwe are entitled to ask-what is a reason-\nobtain appropriations and reimburse GSA\ntee on Government Operations.\nable number, and on what grounds is it\nfor protective assistance beginning in fiscal\nMr. BROCK. Mr. President, one of the\narrived at? Presumably no one would\nyear 1975.\nunfortunate byproducts of the whole\nsuggest that we spend the money on an\nGAO believes that the Secret Service\nWatergate debacle has been the contro-\nunlimited number of houses a President\nshould take the steps necessary now to in-\nversy which has swirled around the\nmay want to own. The other parts of the\nsure that its accounting system will ac-\nbill I think too are sensible and non-\ncumulate and classify costs to properly meet\nmoney spent for protection at Presiden-\nthe external as well as internal needs for cost\ntial and Vice-Presidential homes. In the\ncontroversial. What they do is to set up\ndata.\nfevered political atmosphere of the past\na straightforward and clear procedure\nAlso, GAO believes that additional control\nyear we have had a whole barrage of\nfor authorizing funds spent on security\nof expenditures at private residences can be\noften conflicting accusative claims and\nand other functions and an equally clear\nhad through the use of independent audits.\nemotional statements regarding the\nsystem of congressional audit and over-\nSource: GAO report #B-155950; Protec-\npropriety of expenditures for the Presi-\nsight.\ntion of the President at Key Biscayne and\nSan Clemente, p. 4.\ndent's security.\nThere are certain significant problems\nI firmly believe that so much of this\nwith our present set up-problems\nMr. BROCK. Thus, in line with their\ncould have been avoided if we had de-\nwhich the GAO in its report points out.\nrecommendations, a basic requirement of\nveloped fully adequate procedures for\nI can do no better than quote their re-\nthe bill is that security money is to be\ndisbursement of funds for this service\nport and so ask unanimous consent that\nspent by the Secret Service after it is\nand a comprehensive set of guidelines\npart of the summary dealing with budg-\ncertified by the Director or his deputy as\nregarding their use. It is over 10 years\neting, accounting and auditing be\nnecessary for security; and that a sepa-\nsince the assassination of President Ken-\nprinted in the RECORD at this point.\nrate record accumulated on a current\nnedy. In the aftermath of that tragedy,\nThere being no objection, the excerpts\nbasis is to be kept by the Secret Service\nwe very naturally exhibited greatly in-\nwere ordered to be printed in the REC-\nof how much is spent. Then. not later\ncreased concern with Presidential secu-\nORD, as follows:\nthan February 1 of each year. the Direc-\nrity. Now, while no less concerned with\nBUDGETING, ACCOUNTING. AND AUDITING\ntor shall submit to the congressional\nthat matter, I feel a general consensus\nGAO reviewed the experience of 1968-1973\nleadership a report detailing the amount\nexists that some proper and standardized\nin terms of budgeting, accounting, and\nspent. what it was spent on, and why\nset of accounting and reporting proce-\nauditing with a view to Identifying what\nthe Secret Service deemed it necessary.\ndures should be established-so that\nhas been done or still needs to be done to\nShould there be any debate or con-\nthere can be no repetition in the future\nstrengthen control by the Congress and\ntroversy about any of these items, the\nof our present controversy.\npromote understanding by the public.\nGAO will, at the request of the Speaker\nPursuant to 1968 legislation the Secretary\nThat is why I am introducing today a\nof the House, President pro tempore of\nService began to draw heavily on GSA an-\nmeasure designed to achieve that very\npropriations made available for Secret Serv-\nthe Senate, or majority and minority\ngoal. It is based firmly and squarely on a\nice protective functions with its requests for\nleaders of the House and Senate. audit\nstudy made by the General Accounting\nassistance. It is GSA policy not to question\nany part of the report. Property or ob-\nOffice of this issue, and their subsequent\nSecret Service requests. This arrangement\njects which are provided by public funds\nreport.\nhas the following weaknesses.\nshall. if reasonably possible, be removed\nGSA funds are not directly associated with\nafter the President or Vice President\nIt is a simple and straightforward bill,\nSecret Service protective activities during the\nleaves office-unless required for security\nand certainly places no restriction on\nbudget preparation and review process.\nreasons on a long-term basis.\nfuture Presidents-other than the con-\nA casual attitude in authorizing work is\nAny funds which are spent for uses\ndition that both the President and the\nfostered. Because most requests during the\nVice President shall each designate one\nconstruction period were verbal, who made\nother than security would be appropri-\nprivate residence at which the United\nrequests or precisely what was requested\nated directly to the President or the\ncould not be readily determined.\nExecutive Office. He would then make a\n938839\nLIBRARY\nreport to Congress each year in the same\n\"(1) incurred or made by the Secret\nor Minority Leader of either the Senate or the\nmanner as the Secret Service's, specify-\nService:\nHouse of Representatives, the Comptroller\ning the amounts spent and the reasons.\n\"(2) certified by the Director or Deputy\nGeneral shall audit any report under para-\nAgain. if there is any debate, the GAO\nDirector of the Secret Service as necessary\ngraph (1). The Director of the Secret Serv-\nfor the protection of the President or Vice\nice shall accord the Comptroller General, in\ncan audit the disputed items.\nPresident, as the case may be; and\nthe conduct of such audit, complete access\nMr. President, as you can see, the\n\"(3) approved by the Director or Deputy\nto all records, files, and documents relating\nmeasure clarifies the procedure consid-\nDirector of the Secret Service.\nto each obligation or expenditure covered\nerably. There can be no more future con-\n\"(b) Any property which is acquired by\nby the report.\ntroversy about how many residences the\nthe obligation or expenditure of funds in\n\"(f) (1) Any funds used for the purchase,\nSecret Service has spent money on-\naccordance with subsection (a), and which\nlease, construction, installation. or place-\nevery one will know in advance that only\ncan reasonably be removed from the resi-\nment of any property at, on, in. or on the\none private residence is applicable.\ndence or grounds thereof shall, upon termi-\ngrounds of, any private residence of the Pres-\nnation of the term of office of the President\nident or Vice President (other than property\nThere will be no more confusion over\nor Vice President, as the case may be. be\nacquired by the obligation or expenditure of\nwhat was spent on grounds of security,\nremoved from such residence and returned\nfunds in accordance with subsection (a))\nand what was not. The security budget\nto the Director of the Secret Service unless\nshall be appropriated directly to the Presi-\nwill be separate, clear and open with the\nthe Director determines that such removal\ndent or the Executive Office of the President.\nrationale for all expenditures explained.\nwould impair the effectiveness of the Secret\n\"(2) Not later than February 1 of each\nService in carrying out any continuing re-\nSimilarly, the money spent at other\nyear, the President shall transmit to the\nsponsibility under the law to protect the\nSpeaker of the House of Representatives, the\nPresidential houses for facilities essential\nPresident or Vice President after termina-\nPresident pro tempore of the Senate. and the\nfor the proper operation of the Presi-\ntion of such term of office.\nMajority and Minority Leaders in the Senate\ndency will be equally clear and explained.\n\"(c) The President and Vice President may\nand the House of Representatives a report,\nAny disputes can be resolved by a non-\neach designate one private residence with\nsetting forth in detail, with respect to the\npartisan and professional GAO audit.\nrespect to which funds may be made avail-\npreceding fiscal year-\nAll in all, Mr. President, I feel this\nable pursuant to subsection (a) of this sec-\n\"(A) the amount of each obligation or\nbill is a moderate and eminently sensible\ntion by notifying the Director of the Secret\nexpenditure of funds pursuant to this sub-\nService of the residence so selected, and no\nmeasure to improve the system of pro-\nsection, including a full explanation of the\nfunds to which subsection (a) of this sec-\npurposes for which such obligation or ex-\nviding Presidential security, and to\ntion applies shall be available with respect\npenditure has been made; and\nclarify the budgeting and accounting of\nto any personal residence other than the\n\"(B) the reasons why he deemed the use\nfunds spent on Presidential property. It\none so designated.\nof such funds proper in each instance.\nis a bill which I am sure will interest\n\"(d) The Director of the Secret Service\n\"(3) Upon the request of the Speaker of\nthose who wish to end the ambiguities\nshall cause the record of any obligation or\nthe House of Representatives, the President\nand confusion of our present system.\nexpenditure made in accordance with sub-\npro tempore of the Senate, or the Majority\nI ask unanimous consent that the bill\nsection (a) of this section to be-\nor Minority Leader of either the Senate or\n\"(1) reflected, in the accounting system\nat this point be presented in full in the\nthe House of Representatives, the Comptroller\nof the Secret Service, in an account separate\nGeneral shall audit any report under para-\nRECORD.\nfrom accounts of other obligations and ex-\ngraph (2). The President shall accord the\nThere being no objection, the bill was\npenditures of the Secret Service; and\nComptroller General, in the conduct of such\nordered to be printed in the RECORD, as\n\"(2) accumulated on a current basis.\naudit, complete access to all records, files.\nfollows:\n\"(e) (1) Not later than February 1 of each\nand documents relating to each obligation or\nS. 3515\nyear, the Director of the Secret Service shall\nexpenditure covered by the report.\"\nBe it enacted by the Senate and House of\ntransmit to the Speaker of the House of\n(b) The analysis of chapter 2 of title 3,\nRepresentatives of the United States of\nRepresentatives, the President pro tempore\nUnited States Code, is amended by adding at\nAmerica in Congress assembled, That (a)\nof the Senate, and the Majority and Minority\nthe end thereof the following:\nchapter 2 of title 3, United States Code, is\nLeaders of the Senate and the House of Rep-\n\"§ 112. Procurement of Property for Protec-\namended by adding at the end thereof the\nresentatives, a report setting forth in de-\ntion of President and Vice Presi-\nfollowing new section:\ntall, with respect to the preceding fiscal\ndent at Private Residences.\"\n\"§ 112. Procurement of Property for Protec-\nyear-\ntion of President and Vice Presi-\n\"(A) the amount of each obligation or\ndent at Private Residences.\nexpenditure of funds in accordance with\nsubsection (a) of this section, including a\n\"(a) Except as provided in subsection (f),\nfull explanation of the purposes for which\nno funds authorized to be appropriated un-\nsuch obligation or expenditure has been\nder any provision of law shall be available\nmade: and\nfor obligation or expenditure for the pro-\n\"(B) the reasons why he deems the expend-\ntection of the President or the Vice President\niture or obligation of such funds necessary\nthrough the purchase, lease, construction,\nfor the protection of the President or Vice\ninstallation. or placement of any property at,\nPresident.\non, in. or on the grounds of, any private\n\"(2) Upon the request of the Speaker of\nresidence of the President or Vice President\nthe House of Representatives, the President\nunless such obligation or expenditure is-\npro tempore of the Senate, or the Majority\nFORD\nGERALD\nLIBRARY\n93D CONGRESS\n2D SESSION\nS. 3515\nIN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES\nMAY 21, 1974\nMr. BROCK introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred\nto the Committee on Government Operations\nA BILL\nRelating to the procurement of property for the protection of\nthe President and Vice President at private residences.\n1\nBe it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-\n2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,\n3 That (a) chapter 2 of title 3, United States Code, is amended\n4 by adding at the end thereof the following new section:\n5 \"§ \"§112. Procurement of property for protection of Presi-\n6\ndent and Vice President at private residences\n7\n\"(a) Except as provided in subsection (f), no funds\n8 authorized to be appropriated under any provision of law\n9 shall be available for obligation or expenditure for the pro-\n10 tection of the President or the Vice President through the\nFORD a 071839 LIBRARY\n11 purchase, lease, construction, installation, or placement of\nII\n2\n1 any property at, on, in, or on the grounds of, any private\n2 residence of the President or Vice President unless such obli-\n3 gation or expenditure is-\n4\n(1) incurred or made by the Secret Service;\n5\n\" (2) certified by the Director or Deputy Director\n6\nof the Secret Service as necessary for the protection of\n7\nthe President or Vice President, as the case may be; and\n8\n(3) approved by the Director or Deputy Director\n9\nof the Secret Service.\n10\n\" (b) Any property which is acquired by the obligation\n11 or expenditure of funds in accordance with subsection (a),\n12 and which can reasonably be removed from the residence\n13 or grounds thereof shall, upon termination of the term of\n14 office of the President or Vice President, as the case may\n15 be, be removed from such residence and returned to the\n16 Director of the Secret Service unless the Director deter-\n17 mines that such removal would impair the effectiveness of\n18 the Secret Service in carrying out any continuing respon-\n19 sibility under the law to protect the President or Vice\n20 President after termination of such term of office.\n21\n\" (c) The President and Vice President may each\n22 designate one private residence with respect to which\n23 funds may be made available pursuant to subsection (a)\nFORD\n24 of this section by notifying the Director of the Secret\n25 Service of the residence SO selected, and no funds to which\n3\n1 subsection (a) of this section applies shall be available with\n2 respect to any personal residence other than the one SO\n3 designated.\n4\n\"(d) The Director of the Secret Service shall cause\n5 the record of any obligation or expenditure made in accord-\n6 ance with subsection (a) of this section to be-\n7\n\" (1) reflected, in the accounting system of the\n8\nSecret Service, in an account separate from accounts\n9\nof other obligations and expenditures of the Secret\n10\nService; and\n11\n\" (2) accumulated on a current basis.\n12\n\" (e) (1) Not later than February 1 of each year,\n13 the Director of the Secret Service shall transmit to the\n14 Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President\n15\npro tempore of the Senate, and the majority and minority\n16 leaders of the Senate and the House of Representatives, a\n17 report setting forth in detail, with respect to the preceding\n18 fiscal year-\n19\n\"(A) the amount of each obligation or expendi-\n20\nture of funds in accordance with subsection (a) of\n21\nthis section, including a full explanation of the purposes\n22\nfor which such obligation or expenditure has been made;\n23\nand\n24\n\" (B) the reasons why he deems the expenditure or\n4\n1\nobligation of such funds necessary for the protection of\n2\nthe President or Vice President.\n3\n(2) Upon the request of the Speaker of the House of\n4 Representatives, the President pro tempore of the Senate, or\n5 the majority or minority leader of either the Senate or the\n6 House of Representatives, the Comptroller General shall\n7 audit any report under paragraph (1) . The Director of the\n8 Secret Service shall accord the Comptroller General, in the\n9 conduct of such audit, complete access to all records, files,\n10 and documents relating to each obligation or expenditure\n11 covered by the report.\n12\n\" (f) (1) Any funds used for the purchase, lease, con-\n13 struction, installation, or placement of any property at, on, in,\n14 or on the grounds of, any private residence of the President\n15 or Vice President (other than property acquired by the obli-\n16 gation or expenditure of funds in accordance with subsec-\n17 tion (a)) shall be appropriated directly to the President or\n18 the Executive Office of the President.\n19\n(2) Not later than February 1 of each year, the Pres-\n20 ident shall transmit to the Speaker of the House of Representa-\n21 tives, the President pro tempore of the Senate, and the ma-\nFORD\n22 jority and minority leaders in the Senate and the House\n23 Representatives a report, setting forth in detail, with respect\nLIBRARY\n24 to the preceding fiscal year-\n25\n\" (A) the amount of each obligation or expenditure\n5\n1\nof funds pursuant to this subsection, including a full ex-\n2\nplanation of the purposes for which such obligation or\n3\nexpenditure has been made; and\n4\n\" (B) the reasons why he deemed the use of such\n5\nfunds proper in each instance.\n6\n\" (3) Upon the request of the Speaker of the House of\n7 Representatives, the President pro tempore of the Senate, or\n8 the majority or minority leader of either the Senate or the\n9 House of Representatives, the Comptroller General shall\n10 audit any report under paragraph (2) The President shall\n11 accord the Comptroller General, in the conduct of such audit,\n12 complete access to all records, files, and documents relating\n13 to each obligation or expenditure covered by the report.\".\n14\n(b) The analysis of chapter 2 of title 3, United States\n15 Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:\n\"112. Procurement of property for protection of President and Vice Presi-\ndent at private residences.\".\nR.\nFORD\nGERALD\nEXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT\nOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20503\nAUG\n5\n1974\nMEMORANDUM FOR JERRY JONES\nSubject: Comments on S. 3515\nThis is in reply to your request to the Director of July 8, 1974, for\ncomments and recommendations on S. 3515, a bill introduced by Senator\nBrock relating to procurement of property for the protection of the\nPresident and Vice President at private residences.\nThe Lill (1) prohibits all expenditures (except those provided in (3)\nbelow) for protective property at the private residences of the President\nand Vice President unless the expenditure is approved and made by the\nSecret Service; (2) further limits these expenditures to a single private\nresidence to be designated by the President and another designated by the\nVice President; (3) prohibits all other expenditures for property at pri-\nvate residences except such funds as may be appropriated to the President\nor the Executive Office of the President (according to Senator Brock's\ncomments in the Congressional Record, this section is intended to cover\nonly non-protective expenses but from a strict legal interpretation the\nsection could also cover protective expenses at additional private\nresidences); and (4) mandates certain procedures for recordkeeping,\nreporting, auditing, and authorization for public monies spent on private\nresidences by the Secret Service and by the President or the Executive\nOffice. A more detailed summary of the bill and a comparison with current\nprocedures is included in the addendum.\nThe main objective of the bill is to prevent future controversy over monies\nspent on private residences, such as the controversy which occurred in 1973\nwhen Congressional Committees examined this issued and the General Accounting\nOffice (GAO) issued a report on December 18, 1973, on Protection of the\nPresident at Key Biscayne and San Clemente. The GAO report and many\nCongressmen have criticized some acquisitions of property for private\nresidences and the methods to control such expenditures. Many of the crit-\nicisms over methods to control such expenditures have been met and several\nof the provisions in this bill have thus been overtaken by recent changes\nin statute and procedures which improve the control within the Executive\nBranch and by the Congress over such expenditures.\nis\nFORD\nCARALD\n2\nPast Procedures\nBefore the controversy arose over expenditures at private residences and\nprior to July 1, 1974, the General Services Administration (GSA) received\nappropriations from the Congress for \"Operating Expenses\" of the Public\nBuildings Service which paid for the rental, operation, protection and\nutilization of Government-owned and leased buildings. This appropriation\nalso provided for \" fencing, lighting, guard booths, and other facilities\non private or other property not in Government ownership or control as\nmay be appropriate to enable the United States Secret Service to perform\nits protective functions\nII\nGSA thus provided all funds for protective\nproperty at private residences of the President and Vice President.\nGSA also made some expenditures, which GAO, in its report, considered to\nbe for nonprotective property. These included the installation of flagpoles\nand the renovation of the den at San Clemente into an office. GSA defended\nthese expenditures as II a logical extension of GSA's authority to provide\nadministrative support to the Executive Office of the President. = GAO\ncriticized these nonprotective expenditures as well as certain protective\nexpenditures. After the controversy had arisen, the Congress, in the\nlanguage of the FY 1974 appropriations act (P.L. 93-143, October 30, 1973),\ndirected that quarterly reports of expenditures on private residences be\nsubmitted by GSA to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and the\nSenate.\nCurrent Procedures\nOn July 1, 1974, certain provisions of the Public Building Amendments of 1972\n(P.L. 92-313, June 16, 1972) became effective which restricted GSA's ability\nto fund other Executive branch agencies building improvements or furnishings.\nThese provisions provided that executive agenies would obtain individual\nappropriations for rent and related costs of space instead of GSA obtaining\nall funds in one appropriation. This Act, and the FY 1975 appropriations bill,\nwhich under the continuing resolution on appropriations is controlling,\neliminated GSA's authority and funds to provide property at private\nresidences unless reimbursed from the funds of, and directed by, another\nFederal agency. Funds are now appropriated directly to the Secret Service\nfor protection at private residences to provide for = fencing, lighting,\nguard booths and other facilities on private or other property not in\nGovernment ownership or control as may be necessary to perform protective\nfunctions\n=\nTherefore the Secret Service has authorization and appropriations for\nprotective property at the private residences of the President and Vice\nPresident. This new funding procedure fixes accountability and Congressional\noversight for such expenditures. The lack of accountability and Congressional\noversight was one of GAO's criticisms in its report.\nFORD\nGERALD\nLIBRARY\n3\nOther GAO critisims have also been overcome through the adoption of new\nprocedures. The Secret Service now requires written requests for all\nexpenditures for property at private residences and these requests must\nbe approved in writing by the Deputy Director of the Secret Service.\nThe method and type of report on such expenditures, which will be\nrequired by the Congress, is being formulated by the Secret Service\nand its Appropriations Subcommittee. The funds for protection at\nprivate residences are kept separately within the Secret Service\nappropriation and are subject to GAO audit.\nThe GAO critisms over nonprotective funds have also been alleviated--at\nleast for the present. GSA's funds for such purposes have been eliminated,\nand there are no other funds specifically authorized for nonprotective\npurposes. Some support is provided by the Department of Defense with\nrespect to the President's position as Commander in Chief.\nTheoretically, nonprotective funds for private residences could be\nappropriated to a new appropriations account within the Executive Office\nof the President. However, there is no authorization for such appropria-\ntion within the Executive Office and thus no funds are available. There-\nfore, there is presently a void concerning nonprotective funds at private\nresidences which will probably need to be remedied through authorization\nfor appropriations to a new account within the Executive Office.\nThere may also be other appropriation accounts which supply property to\nprivate residences. For example, the Department of Defense supplies\nsome property in the course of providing communications, emergency\nrelocation, and food service at the private residences of the President.\nGeneral Lawson, Chief Military Aide to the President is familiar with the\nnature and extent of Defense property furnished at private residences.\nProblems Posed by this Bill\nUnder the bill, protective property would be provided by the Secret\nService at only one designated private residence for the President and\nanother for the Vice President. No other agency could provide any\nproperty whatsoever except if funds were appropriated to the President\nor the Executive Office for private residences. The President and/or\nthe Executive Office would need an authorization and an appropriation\nbefore funds could be expended for property at private residences.\nThe bill is unacceptable in its current form because of inadequate pro-\nvision for nonprotective expenditures at the designated residences and\nfor protection and communications at additional private residences.\nThe provision for nonprotective expenditures at the designated residences\nis inadequate because all other agencies, including the Department of\nDefense, would be prohibited from supplying any property for communica-\ntions, emergency relocation, or food service as soon as the bill were\n4\nsigned into law. There is no interim provision for the Executive Office\nor the President to provide this property until a separate authorization\nand appropriation are enacted. Therefore, the situation could develop\nwhere the President would be protected at the designated private residence\nbut have inadequate communications to lead the country if a crisis developed.\nThe limitation of S. 3515 could inadvertently create an alarming situation\nif the President decided to visit a second residence. No equipment of\nthe Secret Service or other government agency could be placed at, on,\nin or on the grounds of the private residence. A strict legal interpreta-\ntion of the bill could lead to the situation where the President is flown\nto his second residence, but must descend onto the helicopter pad via a\nrope ladder, the Secret Service agents must deplane the same way without\nany property (firearms) and all would then enter the private residence\nat which there was no government communications equipment.\nThe other sections of the bill regarding reporting of expendiutres, record-\nkeeping, and auditing duplicate current procedures. These sections are\nunnecessary, but they might be beneficial in preventing future controversy\nbecause of the elimination of doubt over what is the proper procedure.\nThere is one technical problem in these sections concerning the removal\nof protective property after the President's term has expired. The bill\nrequires removal of property which can reasonably be removed. To avoid\ncontroversy the words \"and economically\" should be added as a further\ndefinition of what is reasonable.\nSuggested Changes in S. 3515\nIf some limitation on expenditures at private residences is desirable to\nprevent future controversy, then we believe the following changes are\nessential:\n1. The same protection, communication and essential services\nprovided the President and Vice President when visiting\nsomeone else's residence should be provided on visits to\nhis own second or additional residences. To accomplish\nthis, the bill would need to exempt portable protective\nproperty, communication, and other essential services.\n2. Some interim provision must be added to provide communica-\ntion and other essential property at the designated\nresidence during the time between passage of this bill and\nan appropriation bill to provide funds to the Executive\nOffice for nonprotective property. One interim method\nwould be to allow the funds now appropriated for the\nExecutive Residence also to be expended for property\nat private residences. This might solve the communications\nproblem if the amounts spent were relatively small. In any\nFORD\n5\nevent, because of the prohibition against expenditures\nexcept from appropriations made directly to the President,\nsome provision would be required to provide funds for those\npurposes pending enactment of appropriations.\n3. Nonprotective funds should be authorized for appropriation\nin the bill (Section (f) (1) should be amended by adding\nbefore the period the following: \"; there is hereby authorized\nto be appropriated such sums as may be necessary\").\n4. Section (b) should include \"and economically\" after the word\nreasonably.\nThe bill does have some merit in that it eliminates the ad hoc provisions\nfor property at private residences which appear to have arisen over the\nyears It also could provide for nonprotective property, which is an area\nwhere there is currently a void and must be addressed at some future time.\nWhether all nonprotective property should be funded through one appropria-\ntion is difficult to evaluate without knowing the magnitude of such expendi-\ntures. Also some expenditures may be better left in the Defense Department\nbecause of national security concerns. It should be stressed that any\nappropriation provided for the President would also be the only appropriation\navailable to the Vice President for similar purposes.\nSummary\nOMB is not in a position to decide whether there should be a limit on the\nnumber of private residences in which protective property can be used.\nWe do believe that the limitations imposed by this bill are cumbersome\nand might result in a decrease in the protection and essential communica-\ntions provided the President and Vice President. We believe that present\nprocedures are adequate to assure Congressional oversight over protective\nexpenditures and prevent any future controversy in that area. However,\nsome provision for nonprotective property is probably needed for the\nfuture. If it is decided that a limitation on expenditures is needed\nto eliminate future controversy, then we believe that the perfecting\namendments suggested are essential.\nWall 67 Scott\nAssociate Director for\nEconomics and Government\nAttachment\nADDENDUM\nA summary of provisions in the bill and current procedures follows:\nS. 3515 Subsection (a)\nNo funds other than provided in subsection (f) can be obligated or\nspent for property to protect the private residences of the President\nor Vice President unless the obligation or expenditure is made by the\nSecret Service, certified by the Director or Deputy Director of the\nSecret Service, and approved by the Director or Deputy Director of the\nSecret Service.\nCurrent Procedure\nFunds are appropriated directly to the Secret Service for protective\nproperty at private residences. Secret Service's procedures require\nthe Deputy Director of the Secret Service to approve a written request\nfor all protective expenditures at private residences.\nS. 3515 Subsection (b)\nAny property acquired for protection of private residences shall be\nremoved and returned to the Secret Service upon termination of the\nPresident's or Vice President's term of office unless if cannot\nreasonably be removed or the Director of the Secret Service deter-\nmines it is needed for the continuing protection of the former\nPresident or former Vice President.\nCurrent Procedure\nRemoval of protective property is required if the property can be\nreasonably and economically removed.\nS. 3515 Subsection (c)\nThe President and Vice President are each allowed to designate a\nsingle private residence for which funds for protective property\ncan be obligated in accordance with (a) above.\nCurrent Procedure\nThere is no limit on the number of private residences for which\nfunds for protective property can be obligated.\n2\nS. 3515 Subsection (d)\nRecords of obligations for these expenditures on private residences\nwill be reflected separately in the accounting system of the Secret\nService and accumulated on a current basis.\nCurrent Procedure\nRecords of expenditures on private residences are separately kept\nwithin Secret Service's appropriation and are accumulated on an\nannual basis.\nS. 3515 Subsection (e)\nThe Director of the Secret Service will report to the Congress no\nlater than February 1 of each year on the expenditures and the\nreasons why they were made. GAO can audit any of these records\non request from the Speaker of the House, President of the Senate,\nor the majority or minority heads of either the Senate or House of\nRepresentatives.\nCurrent Procedure\nGAO can audit all records of expenditures by the Secret Service.\nSecret Service and the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Govern-\nment Subcommittees of the Committee on Appropriations are formulating\nthe reporting procedures for expenditures at private residences.\nS. 3515 Subsection (f)\nAny funds used for any property at any private residence of the\nPresident or Vice President (other than that property provided for\nin (a) above) shall be appropriated directly to the President or\nthe Executive Office of the President. Records of the obligations\nshall be kept, reported to the Congress and subject to GAO audit.\nCurrent Procedure\nThe Secret Service provides all protective property. There appears\nto be no funds specifically authorized and appropriated for nonpro-\ntective property at private residences. The Department of Defense\nprovides some nonprotective property in the course of providing\ncommunications, emergency relocations, and food service to the\nCommander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Records of protective\nexpenditures are kept, reported to the Congress, and subject to\nGAO audit.\ntono\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nAugust 23, 1974\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nPHILIP BUCHEN\nSUBJECT:\nLegislation Dealing with the Presidents\nResidence.\nAttached is an OMB memorandum regarding S. 3515 and a copy of proposed\ntestimony by the Treasury Department on H.R. 11499. Both of these bills\nwould regulate and limit government procurement for the protection of\nPresidential and Vice Presidential homes. Bill Skidmore of OMB and I\nhave coordinated on this and have asked that GSA and Treasury (Secret\nService) examine both bills to determine their impact. Questions about\nthe Presidents' home, however, are perhaps more properly a matter for\nthe Counsel's Office than the Domestic Council.\nIf you wish, however, that we continue to gather the opinions of the agencies,\nwe will be glad to do so. If it is determined that the bills are unacceptable,\nit is very likely that Senator Brock could be worked with to provide an\nagreeable bill. Hearings took place before the House on the 20th of August\nat which time GSA read a prepared report. They were postponed at the\nrequest of Treasury prompted by OMB to provide time for the White House\nto study the bill. Treasury and DOD are scheduled to report when the hear-\nings resume and as yet their statements have not been cleared by OMB.\nIf I can be of any help in this matter, please let me know.\n8\nF. Lynn May\nStaff Assistant\nDomestic Council\ncc: Ken Cole\nStan Ebner\nBill Casselman\nAttachment\nOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20503\nAUG 5\n1974\nMEMORANDUM FOR JERRY JONES\nSubject: Comments on S. 3515\nThis is in reply to your request to the Director of July 8, 1974, for\ncomments and recommendations on S. 3515, a bill introduced by Senator\nBrock relating to procurement of property for the protection of the\nPresident and Vice President at private residences.\nThe bill (1) prohibits all expenditures (except those provided in (3)\nbelow) for protective property at the private residences of the President\nand Vice President unless the expenditure is approved and made by the\nSecret Service; (2) further limits these expenditures to a single private\nresidence to be designated by the President and another designated by the\nVice President; (3) prohibits all other expenditures for property at pri-\nvate residences except such funds as may be appropriated to the President\nor the Executive Office of the President (according to Senator Brock's\ncomments in the Congressional Record, this section is intended to cover\nonly non-protective expenses but from a strict legal interpretation the\nsection could also cover protective expenses at additional private\nresidences); and (4) mandates certain procedures for recordkeeping,\nreporting, auditing, and authorization for public monies spent on private\nresidences by the Secret Service and by the President or the Executive\nOffice. A more detailed summary of the bill and a comparison with current\nprocedures is included in the addendum.\nThe main objective of the bill is to prevent future controversy over monies\nspent on private residences, such as the controversy which occurred in 1973\nwhen Congressional Committees examined this issued and the General Accounting\nOffice (GAO) issued a report on December 18, 1973, on Protection of the\nPresident at Key Biscayne and San Clemente. The GAO report and many\nCongressmen have criticized some acquisitions of property for private\nresidences and the methods to control such expenditures. Many of the crit-\nicisms over methods to control such expenditures have been met and several\nof the provisions in this bill have thus been overtaken by recent changes\nin statute and procedures which improve the control within the Executive\nBranch and by the Congress over such expenditures.\nSERALD FORD LIBRAND\n2\nPast Procedures\nBefore the controversy arose over expenditures at private residences and\nprior to July 1, 1974, the General Services Administration (GSA) received\nappropriations from the Congress for \"Operating Expenses\" of the Public\nBuildings Service which paid for the rental, operation, protection and\nutilization of Government-owned and leased buildings. This appropriation\nalso provided for = fencing, lighting, guard booths, and other facilities\non private or other property not in Government. ownership or control as\nmay be appropriate to enable the United States Secret Service to perform\nits protective functions = GSA thus provided all funds for protective\nproperty at private residences of the President and Vice President.\nGSA also made some expenditures, which GAO, in its report, considered to\nbe for nonprotective property. These included the installation of flagpoles\nand the renovation of the den at San Clemente into an office. GSA defended\nthese expenditures as \" a logical extension of GSA's authority to provide\nadministrative support to the Executive Office of the President as GAO\ncriticized these nonprotective expenditures as well as certain protective\nexpenditures. After the controversy had arisen, the Congress, in the\nlanguage of the FY 1974 appropriations act (P.L. 93-143, October 30, 1973),\ndirected that quarterly reports of expenditures on private residences be\nsubmitted by GSA to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and the\nSenate.\nCurrent Procedures\nOn July 1, 1974, certain provisions of the Public Building Amendments of 1972\n(P.L. 92-313, June 16, 1972) became effective which restricted GSA's ability\nto fund other Executive branch agencies building improvements or furnishings.\nThese provisions provided that executive agenies would obtain individual\nappropriations for rent and related costs of space instead of GSA obtaining\nall funds in one appropriation. This Act, and the FY 1975 appropriations bil\nwhich under the continuing resolution on appropriations is controlling,\neliminated GSA's authority and funds to provide property at private\nresidences unless reimbursed, from the funds of, and directed by, another\nFederal agency. Funds are now appropriated directly to the Secret Service\nfor protection at private residences to provide for # fencing, lighting,\nguard booths and other facilities on private or other property not in\nGovernment ownership or control as may be necessary to perform protective\nfunctions\n=\nTherefore the Secret Service has authorization and appropriations for\nprotective property at the private residences of the President and Vice\nPresident. This new funding procedure fixes accountability and Congressiona'\noversight for such expenditures. The lack of accountability and Congression\noversight was one of GAO's criticisms in its report.\nFORD\nCERALD\n3\nOther GAO critisims have also been overcome through the adoption of new\nprocedures. The Secret Service now requires written requests for all\nexpenditures for property at private residences and these requests must\nbe approved in writing by the Deputy Director of the Secret Service.\nThe method and type of report on such expenditures, which will be\nrequired by the Congress, is being formulated by the Secret Service\nand its Appropriations Subcommittee. The funds for protection at\nprivate residences are kept separately within the Secret Service\nappropriation and are subject to GAO audit.\nThe GAO critisms over nonprotective funds have also been alleviated--at\nleast for the present. GSA's funds for such purposes have been eliminated\nand there are no other funds specifically authorized for nonprotective\npurposes. Some support is provided by the Department of Defense with\nrespect to the President's position as Commander in Chief.\nTheoretically, nonprotective funds for private residences could be\nappropriated to a new appropriations account within the Executive Office\nof the President. However, there is no authorization for such appropria-\ntion within the Executive Office and thus no funds are available. There-\nfore, there is presently a void concerning nonprotective funds at private\nresidences which will probably need to be remedied through authorization\nfor appropriations to a new account within the Executive Office.\nThere may also be other appropriation accounts which supply property to\nprivate residences. For example, the Department of Defense supplies\nsome property in the course of providing communications, emergency\nrelocation, and food service at the private residences of the President.\nGeneral Lawson, Chief Military Aide to the President is familiar with the\nnature and extent of Defense property furnished at private residences.\nProblems Posed by this Bill\nUnder the bill, protective property would be provided by the Secret\nService at only one designated private residence for the President and\nanother for the Vice President. No other agency could provide any\nproperty whatsoever except if funds were appropriated to the President\nor the Executive Office for private residences. The President and/or\nthe Executive Office would need an authorization and an appropriation\nbefore funds could be expended for property at private residences.\nThe bill is unacceptable in its current form because of inadequate pro-\nvision for nonprotective expenditures at the designated residences and\nfor protection and communications at additional private residences.\nThe provision for nonprotective expenditures at the designated residences\nis inadequate because all other agencies, including the Department of\nDefense, would be prohibited from supplying any property for communica-\ntions, emergency relocation, or food service as soon as the bill were\n4\nsigned into law. There is no interim provision for the Executive Office\nor the President to provide this property until a separate authorization\nand appropriation are enacted. Therefore, the situation could develop\nwhere the President would be protected at the designated private residence\nbut have inadequate communications to lead the country if a crisis developed.\nThe limitation of S. 3515 could inadvertently create an alarming situation\nif the President decided to visit a second residence. No equipment of\nthe Secret Service or other government agency could be placed at, on,\nin or on the grounds of the private residence. A strict legal interpreta-\ntion of the bill could lead to the situation where the President is flown\nto his second residence, but must descend onto the helicopter pad via a\nrope ladder, the Secret Service agents must deplane the same way without\nany property (firearms) and all would then enter the private residence\nat which there was no government communications equipment.\nThe other sections of the bill regarding reporting of expendiutres, record-\nkeeping, and auditing duplicate current procedures. These sections are\nunnecessary, but they might be beneficial in preventing future controversy\nbecause of the elimination of doubt over what is the proper procedure.\nThere is one technical problem in these sections concerning the removal\nof protective property after the President's term has expired. The bill\nrequires removal of property which can reasonably be removed. To avoid\ncontroversy the words \"and economically\" should be added as a further\ndefinition of what is reasonable.\nSuggested Changes in S. 3515\nIf some limitation on expenditures at private residences is desirable to\nprevent future controversy, then we believe the following changes are\nessential:\n1. The same protection, communication and essential services\nprovided the President and Vice President when visiting\nsomeone else's residence should be provided on visits to\nhis own second or additional residences. To accomplish\nthis, the bill would need to exempt portable protective\nproperty, communication, and other essential services.\n2. Some interim provision must be added to provide communica-\ntion and other essential property at the designated\nresidence during the time between passage of this bill and\nan appropriation bill to provide funds to the Executive\nOffice for nonprotective property. One interim method\nwould be to allow the funds now appropriated for the\nExecutive Residence also to be expended for property\nat private residences. This might solve the communications\nproblem if the amounts spent were relatively small. In any\n5\nevent, because of the prohibition against expenditures\nexcept from appropriations made directly to the President,\nsome provision would be required to provide funds for those\npurposes pending enactment of appropriations.\n3. Nonprotective funds should be authorized for appropriation\nin the bill (Section (f) (1) should be amended by adding\nbefore the period the following: \"; there is hereby authorized\nto be appropriated such sums as may be necessary\").\n4. Section (b) should include \"and economically\" after the word\nreasonably.\nThe bill does have some merit in that it eliminates the ad hoc provisions\nfor property at private residences which appear to have arisen over the\nyears. It also could provide for nonprotective property, which is an area\nwhere there is currently a void and must be addressed at some future time.\nWhether all nonprotective property should be furided through one appropria-\ntion is difficult to evaluate without knowing the magnitude of such expendi-\ntures. Also some expenditures may be better left in the Defense Department\nbecause of national security concerns. It should be stressed that any\nappropriation provided for the President would also be the only appropriation\navailable to the Vice President for similar purposes.\nSummary\nOMB is not in a position to decide whether there should be a limit on the\nnumber of private residences in which protective property can be used\nWe do believe that the limitations imposed by this bill are cumbersome\nand might result in a decrease in the protection and essential communica-\ntions provided the President and Vice President. We believe that present\nprocedures are adequate to assure Congressional oversight over protective\nexpenditures and prevent any future controversy in that area. However,\nsome provision for nonprotective property is probably needed for the\nfuture. If it is decided that a limitation on expenditures is needed\nto eliminate future controversy, then we believe that the perfecting\namendments suggested are essential.\n(signed) Wally\nWalter D. Scott\nAssociate Director for\nEconomics and Government\nAttachment\ncc:\nOfficial file (Treasury Unit)\nMr. W. Scott\nMr. Bray\nReturn, Mr. Jordan\nEGGDiv:JFJordan:ejg 8/2/74\nADDENDUM\nA summary of provisions in the bill and current procedures follows:\nS. 3515 Subsection (a)\nNo funds other than provided in subsection (f) can be obligated or\nspent for property to protect the private residences of the President\nor Vice President unless the obligation or expenditure is made by the\nSecret Service, certified by the Director or Deputy Director of the\nSecret Service, and approved by the Director or Deputy Director of the\nSecret Service.\nCurrent Procedure\nFunds are appropriated directly to the Secret Service for protective\nproperty at private residences. Secret Service's procedures require\nthe Deputy Director of the Secret Service to approve a written request\nfor all protective expenditures at private residences.\nS. 3515 Subsection (b)\nAny property acquired for protection of private residences shall be\nremoved and returned to the Secret Service upon termination of the\nPresident's or Vice President's term of office unless if cannot\nreasonably be removed or the Director of the Secret Service deter-\nmines it is needed for the continuing protection of the former\nPresident or former Vice President.\nCurrent Procedure\nRemoval of protective property is required if the property can be\nreasonably and economically removed.\nS. 3515 Subsection (c)\nThe President and Vice President are each allowed to designate a\nsingle private residence for which funds for protective property\ncan be obligated in accordance with (a) above.\nCurrent Procedure\nThere is no limit on the number of private residences for. which\nfunds for protective property can be obligated.\n2\nS. 3515 Subsection (d)\nRecords of obligations for these expenditures on private residences\nwill be reflected separately in the accounting system of the Secret\nService and accumulated on a current basis.\nCurrent Procedure\nRecords of expenditures on private residences are separately kept\nwithin Secret Service's appropriation and are accumulated on an\nannual basis.\n$. 3515 Subsection (e)\nThe Director of the Secret Service will report to the Congress no\nlater than February 1 of each year on the expenditures and the\nreasons why they were made. GAO can audit any of these records\non request from the Speaker of the House, President of the Senate,\nor the majority or minority heads of either the Senate or House of\nRepresentatives.\nCurrent Procedure\nGAO can audit all records of expenditures by the Secret Service.\nSecret Service and the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Govern-\nment Subcommittees of the Committee on Appropriations are formulating\nthe reporting procedures for expenditures at private residences.\nS. 3515 Subsection (f)\nAny funds used for any property at any private residence of the\nPresident or Vice President (other than that property provided for\nin (a) above) shall be appropriated directly to the President or\nthe Executive Office of the President. Records of the obligations\nshall be kept, reported to the Congress and subject to GAO audit.\nCurrent Procedure\nThe Secret Service provides all protective property. There appears\nto be no funds specifically authorized and appropriated for nonpro-\ntective property at private residences. The Department of Defense\nprovides some nonprotective property in the course of providing\ncommunications, emergency relocations, and food service to the\nCommander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Records of protective\nexpenditures are kept, reported to the Congress, and subject to\nGAO audit.\nBill Skidmore\nDepartment of the Treasury\nUnited States Secret Service\nStatement of Lilburn E. Boggs\nDeputy Director, U. S. Secret Service\nBefore the Sub-Committee\nOn Claims and Governmental Relations\nHouse Judiciary Committee\nAugust 22, 1974\nR3\n3470 R. FORD LIBAR\nMr. Chairman:\nI am pleased to appear before you and the other\ndistinguished members of this Committee to present the\nviews of the United States Secret Service regarding\nH. R. 11499, a bill \"to establish procedures and regula-\ntions for certain protective services provided by the\nUnited States Secret Service.\"\nFirst of all, let me state that the concerns that\nprompted the introduction of the bill before you today have\nalready been the subject of a careful review by the House and\nSenate Subcommittees on Appropriations that have the respon-\nsibility for recommending funds for the operations of the\nSecret Service and for overseeing the expenditure of the\namounts appropriated by the Congress. At the direction of\nthe Subcommittees on Appropriations and with the assistance\nof their staffs, we have developed a comprehensive procedure\nfor the acquisition of space, alterations, and services at\nlocations involving protective operations.\nWith your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to\nsubmit copies of these procedures for the consideration of\nthe members of the Committee and for insertion in the record.\n- 2 -\nIn reviewing the procedures, you will note that they\nare all encompassing, and include operations at both\nprivately-owned or leased sites and property as well as\nGovernment-owned or leased sites and property. In addition\nto meeting the concerns of the House and Senate Subcommittees\non Appropriations, they take into account and implement the\nrecommendations of the Comptroller General in his report to\nthe Congress entitled \"Protection of the President at Key\nBiscayne and San Clemente (With Information on Protection\nof Past Presidents)\" B-15,5950.\nA comparison of the procedures with H. R. 11499 indicates\nthat many of the provisions in the proposed bill, namely,\nsections four, five, and six, have already been included\nin our recently promulgated procedures. The sections of the\nbill not addressed by our procedures are those that would\nhamper Secret Service operations by placing limitations on\nthe duration of time that protection could be provided with-\nout reimbursement and the amount of funds that could be\nexpended, the restriction of permanent protection to one\nlocation, and, for all practical purposes, the elimination\nof the assistance provided to the Secret Service by other\nagencies without reimbursement. All of these latter items\nare of grave concern to us in that they will either seriously\n-3-\nimpede the level of protection that we can provide, result\nin some instances in a greater expenditure of funds than\nwould otherwise be the case, and cause serious problems\nfor the Secret Service in predicting budgetary require-\nments. In this regard, the repeal of Section two of the\nAct of June 6, 1968 (Public Law 90-331), is of particular\nconcern to us.\nWith the indulgence of the Committee, it might be appro-\npriate at this point to review the evolution of the assistance\nprovided by other agencies to the Service in carrying out its\nprotective responsibilities.\nAs you know the operations of the Secret Service were\ncarefully reviewed by the President's Commission on the assa-\nssination of President Kennedy better know as the Warren Comm-\nission. In its report the Commission made substantial\nrecommendations relative to the level of protection being\nafforded the President. In its report the Commission mentioned\namong other things that the protection of the President is in\na real sense a Government-wide responsibility which must\nnecessarily be assumed by various Government Agencies. The\nCommission further stated that \"Protecting the President is a\n-4-\ndifficult and complex task which requires full use of the\nbest resources of many parts of our Government. Recognition\nthat the responsibility must be shared increases the likeli-\nhood that it will be met.\"\nSubsequent to the Commission Report the Secret Service\nmade arrangements with various Government Agencies for their\nspecialized support as the need arose without any provision\nfor reimbursement. These informal arrangements were the\nbasis for the express statutory authority contained in Sec-\ntion 2 of Public Law 90-331. In its report on the bill the\nSenate Committee on Appropriation stated \"the proposed lan-\nguage will provide specific authorization of a long-esta-\nblished practice of utilizing other Federal departments in\nthe protective assignments. This assistance may include,\nbut is not limited to, the provision of personnel and\nfacilities for intelligence gathering, medical, transpor-\ntation, and communications purposes. It eliminates any\ndoubt of the legal basis for such practice and assures\nTreasury direction of the protective functions.\"\nWhen the conference report on the bill (HR16488) was\ncalled up before the house, the following statements were\nmade:\n-5-\nLast week, we gave support to the Presi-\ndent's emergency action. A resolution (H.J.\n1292) was adopted by both Houses--and signed\nby the President on the same day--to pro-\nvide authority for the safeguarding of pre-\nsidential candidates. We also wrote into\npermanent law the right of the Secret Service\nto call upon the personnel and facilities\nof all Government agencies to assist in the\nprotection of our Presidents and presidential\ncandidates. While this had long been the\ncustom, there had been no statutory authority\nfor this action.\nOur attention has also been focused once\nagain on the need for other Federal depart-\nments and agencies to assist the Secret Service\nin its protective functions. This need was\nstressed vigorously by the Warren Commission.\nAs the number of persons subject to Secret\nService protection and the amount of their\ntravel has increased over the years, these pro-\ntective functions have become a Government wide\nresponsibility.\n-6-\nThe task of protecting our Presidents in-\nvolves far more than the availability of\ntrained agents. It requires the coordination\nof all law enforcement agencies for intelli-\ngence gathering, the availability of safe\ntransportation facilities and adequate commu-\nnications to reach remote areas, health and\nscientific expertise to test food and\ndrinking water, and many other governmental\nresources. We must never permit the safety\nof our Presidents--present, past, or future\nto be compromised because the resources of\nthe Government were not made available to\nthe fullest extent possible to insure their\nprotection.\nIt is clear from the legislative history of Public Law\n90-331 that the Congress has not intended that the Secret\nService shoulder the entire federal financial burden of\nprotective activities and that section 2 of Public Law\n90-331 was simply intended to put a congressional stamp\nof approval on the existing practice of federal agencies\nproviding assistance to the Secret Service in connection\n-7-\nwith its protective functions without any requirements for\nreimbursement.\nIn this respect we believe the Congress, in its wisdom,\nrecognized that it would be totally impractical for the\nSecret Service to accurately project for budgetary purposes\nthe variety of specialized needs which could occur in the\ntotal protection environment. Inasmuch as our requests for\nsupport are made to a number of different agencies, the\nbudgetary impact on any one particular agency is minimized.\nIn view of the above we strongly urge that section two\nof Public Law 90-331 not be repealed as provided by Section\nnine of the bill before you and that the current arrangements\nfor assistance from other agencies whichhave proved so satis-\nfactory in the past not be disturbed.\nIn the event this committee and the Congress retains\nthe provisions of Section 2 of Public Law 90-331, then the\nprovisions of Section 2 (1) of HR11499 become moot.\nWith respect to section 2 (2) and 2 (3) of the bill, past\nhistory indicates that in recent years most Presidents have\nutilized more than one residence not in Government ownership\nor control. Aside from the question of whether or not it is*\n-8-\ndesirable to place such restrictions on the residences of\nthe President and others who are provided Secret Service\nprotection, and perhaps financial hardships as well in the\nevent they choose or are forced to move, the $5,000 limi-\ntation in section 2(3) of the bill on the amount that could be\nspent on a second residence could conceivably result in\nadditional overall protection costs. This would almost be\na certainty in view of section three which prohibits the\nmaintenance of a permanent guard detail to secure a second\nresidence.\nThe rationale for this conclusion is that, not with-\nstanding the above restrictions on the Secret Service, a\nPresident or other protectee may still choose to utilize a\nsecond residence. In this event, the Secret Service would\nstill be charged with providing the required protection.\nDue to the proposed limitation of $5,000 and the prohibition\non permanent guards, little could be done to permanently\nsecure a second residence. In the absence of the residence\nbeing permanently secured, the Service would be forced to\nutilize additional personnel over and above the normal pro-\ntective detail to do a complete inspection of the premises\nbefore they could be occupied. Depending on the frequency\n-9-\nof use, the cost of the additional personnel involved to-\ngether with their travel and per diem expenses plus the\nextra expense of transporting equipment might well exceed\nwhat it would otherwise cost to secure the premises on a\npermanent basis in the absence of the proposed restrictions.\nSection seven of the bill is related to Section nine\nin that after a period of two weeks any support received\nfrom other agencies would be subject to reimbursement from\nfunds appropriated to the Secret Service. For the same,\nreasons cited earlier with respect to section nine, the Ser-\nvice urges that this provision not be adopted.\nWith respect to section eight, it should be noted that\nthe Secret Service has been directed by the Subcommittee on\nAppropriations to submit quarterly reports of activities per-\nformed and the costs incurred to the Appropriations Committee\nof the Congress.\nIn summary, Mr. Chairman, we believe that the procedures\nalready established at the direction of the Subcommittee\non Appropriations are adequate to meet the concerns of the\nCongress with respect to our protective operation. I should\nmention too, that due to the relatively short notice of these\nhearing time did not permit the clearance of my statement\nwith the Office of Management and Budget.\n-10-\nMr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks and I shall\nnow be glad to answer any questions you or the other members\nof the committee may have.\nFORD is LIBRARY\nDEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY\nUNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE\nDIRECTOR\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20223\nFebruary 22, 1974\n620.0\nx530.0\nMEMORANDUM\nTo: Deputy Director\nAssistant Directors\nAssistants to the Director\nLegal Counsel\nAll SAIC's and Division Chiefs\nFrom: Director\nSubject: Procedure for the Acquisition of Space, Alterations,\nand Services at Locations Involving Protective Operations\nAttached are revised procedures covering the acquisition of\nspace, alterations, and services at locations involving protective\noperations. These procedures are effective immediately.\nAs indicated in the procedures, all approved work will be\nmonitored jointly by the Office of Administration and the\noperational office involved. Any necessary adjustments in the\naction requested will be conveyed to the initiating office through\nthe appropriate Assistant Director for the operational office involved.\nIt is expected that these procedures will be strictly followed.\nAny deviations therefrom must have the express written pproval\nof the Deputy Director.\nAdditional copies of SS Form No. 1911 may be obtained from\nthe Administrative Operations Division in the usual manner.\nHSKmyW\nH. S. Knight\nLIBRARY GERALD 1080\nAttachment\nPROCEDURES FOR THE ACQUISITION OF SPACE,\nALTERATIONS, ND SERVICES AT LOCATIONS\nINVOLVING PROTECTIVE OPERATIONS\n1. Purpose\nThe purpose of these procedures is to establish a uniform\nmethod in the Secret Service for the acquisition of space,\nalterations, and other services at locations involving pro-\ntective operations.\n2. Scope\nThese procedures are applicable to all Secret Service Offices,\nDivisions, Details, or other groups who have been assigned the\nduty to provide protection to persons, places, or things.\nIncluded in this coverage are operations at both Government-owned\nand Government-leased sites and property, as well as privately-owned\nleased sites and property.\n3. General Coverage\nThese procedures cover all work performed or to be performed,\ntogether with any related expenditures for all space, alterations,\nservices, equipment. furniture, and all other items of tangible\nproperty which are furnished, installed, constructed, repaired,\nor altered by or at the request of the United States Secret Service,\nincluding those items that are physically attached or made a\npermanent part of any structure, property, site, or other hysical\nentity.\n4. Survey or Requirements\nThe Secret Se vice will conduct its usual survey to letermine\nwhat measures are necessary to provide the desired.level of\nprotection.\n- 2 -\n5. Request for Authorization and Performance\nRequests for work or expenditures described in paragraph 3\nabove will be documented as indicated on SS Form No. 1911,\nincluding all pertinent justifications and specifications. The\ncost estimate will include information obtained from the\nGeneral Services Administration, where appropriate. When\nrequired, use plain paper for continuation sheets. Requests\nwill be deemed to include all necessary future replacements,\nmaintenance, and repairs relating to the work or other items\nspecifically requested.\n6. Proposed Recovery of Equipment and/or Restoration Required\nItems of equipment that the Secret Service proposes to recover\nat the termination of the mission will be clearly spelled out on\nSS Form No. 1911, together with any restorations that appear to\nbe required. It should be understood that in some instances, it\nmay not be practical or economically feasible at some future date\nto recover items and make restorations as contemplated at the\ntime the work was originally performed.\n7. Concurrence of Protectee or His Designee when Either\nPrivately-owned or Leased Property is Involved\nPrior to- the commencement of any work on privately-owned or\nprivately-leased property, the concurrence for such work that\nis required to be performed will be obtained by the requesting\noffice from the protectee or his designated representative. When\nrepresentatives are designated to act for protectees, such authori-\nzations shall be obtained in writing from the particular protectee\ninvolved. Such concurrence shall not be considered as agreement\nby the protectee to the proposed recovery or restoration proposed\nin the request.\n!\nBERALD\nLIDERAL\n3\n8. Processing of SS Form No. 1911. \"Request for Space,\nAlterations, Equipment. and Services at Locations\nInvolving Protective Operations\nSS Form No. 1911 will be initiated by the appropriate\nSpecial Agent in Charge or Assistant Director involved. Cost\nestimates will be determined by the requesting office in con-\njunction with the Administrative Operations Division in the\nOffice of Administration. Any cost information required from\nthe General Services Administration will be obtained by the\nAdministrative Operations Division, which will also serve as the\ncontacting office with that agency. After the requisite approvals\nand certifications as to the availability of funds has been obtained,\nthe Administrative Operations Division will issue the appropriate\njob orders, purchase orders, or contracts, as the case may be.\nThe performance of any work required will be monitored jointly\nby the Administrative Operations Division and the appropriate\nSpecial Agent in Charge or Assistant Director involved.\n9. Emergency Procedures\nWhen an emergency arises and time does not permit the\nprocessing of SS Form No. 1911 in the usual manner, all\nrequests, concurrences, and approvals required by these pro-\ncedures may be processed orally. Any such emergency oral\nactions shall be confirmed by the submission of SS Form No. 1911\nwith a check mark in the \"Confirmation\" block as soon as\npossible thereafter, preferably within 24 hours.\n10. Accounting and Reporting\nCosts will be accumulated for each location indicating whether\nthe property is Government-owned or leased or privatel buyned\nor leased. Any reports or notices required by law partaining\nSTATES\n- 4 -\nto the activities covered by these procedures will have the\nconcurrence of the agencies involved, i.e., Secret Service and\nthe General Services Administration.\nEffective July 1, 1974, all costs incurred under these procedures\nwill be funded from the appropriation of the United States Secret\nService. Appropriate reports of the activities performed and\nthe costs incurred under these procedures will be made to the\nAppropriations Committees of the Congress.\n11. Effective Date\nThe requirements spelled out in these procedures are effective\nimmediately. The Director's memorandum of October 15, 1973,\nsubject \"Space for Protectees, \" File No. 530.0 (x 610.0) is\nhereby rescinded.\nHSKungh5\nH. S. Knight\nREQUEST FOR SPACE, ALTERATIONS, EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES\nAT LOCATIONS INVOLVING PROTECTIVE OPERATIONS\nPAGE NO.\nA. GENERAL INFORMATION\nOF\nPAGES\nNAME OF PROTECTEE\nFINANCIAL CODE (FMD USE ONLY)\nDATE OF REQUEST\nNAME OF SITE LOCATION\nORIGINAL REQUEST\nFILE NO.\n620.0\nGOV'T OWNED\nPRIVATELY OWNED\nCONFIRMATION OF\nGOV'T LEASED\nPRIVATELY LEASED\nGENERAL PROJECT TITLE\nSUMMARY OF PROPOSAL\nNAME OF REQUESTOR\nOFFICE\nCONTACT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION\nTELEPHONE NO.\nREQUIRED COMPLETION DATE\nB. SUMMARY JUSTIFICATION AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROJECT (CONTINUE ON PLAIN BOND PAPER)\nTOTAL ESTIMATED COST\nC. PROPOSED RECOVERY OF EQUIPMENT AND/OR RESTORATION REQUIRED\nTOTAL ESTIMATED COST\nD. CONCURRENCE OF PROTECTEE OR DESIGNEE\n(PRIVATELY OWNED/LEASED PROPERTY ONLY)\nSIGNATURE\nDATE\nE. APPROVALS\nOPERATIONAL\n:\nSTATE\nSAIC (SIGNATURE)\nDATE\nAPPROPRIATE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (SIGNATUR\nDATE\nADMINISTRATIVE\nF. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS CERTIFICATION\nEREIT\nAD-ADMINISTRATION (SIGNATURE)\nDATE\n(FMD USE ONLY)\nAGENCY\nDEPUTY DIRECTOR (SIGNATURE)\nDATE\nUNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE\nSSF 1911 (02-74)\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nAugust 30, 1974\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nBILL TIMMONS\nFROM:\nPHIL BUCHEN\nSUBJECT:\nLegislation dealing with the\nPresident's residence\nSo far as I am concerned, the comments in the OMB\nmemorandum for Jerry Jones on S. 3515 dated August 5,\n1974 (copy attached) represent an appropriate critique of\nsuch bill and could be the basis of followup for your letter\nof July 1, 1974, to Senator Bill Brock.\nAttachments\ncc: Jerry Jones\nLynn May\nGERALB FORD LIBRARY\nEXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT\nOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20503\nAUG 5 1974\nMEMORANDUM FOR JERRY JONES\nSubject: Comments on S. 3515\nThis is in reply to your request to the Director of July 8, 1974, for\ncomments and recommendations on S. 3515, a bill introduced by Senator\nBrock relating to procurement of property for the protection of the\nPresident and Vice President at private residences.\nThe Lill (1) prohibits all expenditures (except those provided in (3)\nbelow) for protective property at the private residences of the President\nand Vice President unless the expenditure is approved and made by the\nSecret Service; (2) further limits these expenditures to a single private\nresidence to be designated by the President and another designated by the\nVice President; (3) prohibits all other expenditures for property at pri-\nvate residences except such funds as may be appropriated to the President\nor the Executive Office of the President (according to Senator Brock's\ncomments in the Congressional Record, this section is intended to cover\nonly non-protective expenses but from a strict legal interpretation the\nsection could also cover protective expenses at additional private\nresidences); and (4) mandates certain procedures for recordkeeping,\nreporting, auditing, and authorization for public monies spent on private\nresidences by the Secret Service and by the President or the Executive\nOffice. A more detailed summary of the bill and a comparison with current\nprocedures is included in the addendum.\nThe main objective of the bill is to prevent future controversy over monies\nspent on private residences, such as the controversy which occurred in 1973\nwhen Congressional Committees examined this issued and the General Accounting\nOffice (GAO) issued a report on December 18, 1973, on Protection of the\nPresident at Key Biscayne and San Clemente. The GAO report and many\nCongressmen have criticized some acquisitions of property for private\nresidences and the methods to control such expenditures. Many of the crit-\nicisms over methods to control such expenditures have been met and several\nof the provisions in this bill have thus been overtaken by recent changes\nin statute and procedures which improve the control within the Executive\nBranch and by the Congress over such expenditures.\n-\nFORD\nGERATO\nLIBRARY\n2\nPast Procedures\nBefore the controversy arose over expenditures at private residences and\nprior to July 1, 1974, the General Services Administration (GSA) received\nappropriations from the Congress for \"Operating Expenses\" of the Public\nBuildings Service which paid for the rental, operation, protection and\nutilization of Government-owned and leased buildings. This appropriation\nalso provided for = fencing, lighting, guard booths, and other facilities\non private or other property not in Government ownership or control as\nmay be appropriate to enable the United States Secret Service to perform\nits protective functions GSA thus provided all funds for protective\nproperty at private residences of the President and Vice President.\nGSA also made some expenditures, which GAO, in its report, considered to\nbe for nonprotective property. These included the installation of flagpoles\nand the renovation of the den at San Clemente into an office. GSA defended\nthese expenditures as = a logical extension of GSA's authority to provide\nadministrative support to the Executive Office of the President... = GAO\ncriticized these nonprotective expenditures as well as certain protective\nexpenditures. After the controversy had arisen, the Congress, in the\nlanguage of the FY 1974 appropriations act (P.L. 93-143, October 30, 1973),\ndirected that quarterly reports of expenditures on private residences be\nsubmitted by GSA to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and the\nSenate.\nCurrent Procedures\nOn July 1, 1974, certain provisions of the Public Building Amendments of 1972\n(P.L. 92-313, June 16, 1972) became effective which restricted GSA's ability\nto fund other Executive branch agencies building improvements or furnishings.\nThese provisions provided that executive agenies would obtain individual\nappropriations for rent and related costs of space instead of GSA obtaining\nall funds in one appropriation. This Act, and the FY 1975 appropriations bill,\nwhich under the continuing resolution on appropriations is controlling,\neliminated GSA's authority and funds to provide property at private\nresidences unless reimbursed from the funds of, and directed by, another\nFederal agency. Funds are now appropriated directly to the Secret Service\nfor protection at private residences to provide for = fencing, lighting,\nguard booths and other facilities on private or other property not in\nGovernment ownership or control as may be necessary to perform protective\nfunctions\n\"\nTherefore the Secret Service has authorization and appropriations for\nprotective property at the private residences of the President and Vice\nPresident. This new funding procedure fixes accountability and Congressional\noversight for such expenditures. The lack of accountability and Congressional\noversight was one of GAO's criticisms in its report.\nFOND\nLIBRARY\n3\nOther GAO critisims have also been overcome through the adoption of new\nprocedures. The Secret Service now requires written requests for all\nexpenditures for property at private residences and these requests must\nbe approved in writing by the Deputy Director of the Secret Service.\nThe method and type of report on such expenditures, which will be\nrequired by the Congress, is being formulated by the Secret Service\nand its Appropriations Subcommittee. The funds for protection at\nprivate residences are kept separately within the Secret Service\nappropriation and are subject to GAO audit.\nThe GAO critisms over nonprotective funds have also been alleviated--at\nleast for the present. GSA's funds for such purposes have been eliminated,\nand there are no other funds specifically authorized for nonprotective\npurposes. Some support is provided by the Department of Defense with\nrespect to the President's position as Commander in Chief.\nTheoretically, nonprotective funds for private residences could be\nappropriated to a new appropriations account within the Executive Office\nof the President. However, there is no authorization for such appropria-\ntion within the Executive Office and thus no funds are available. There-\nfore, there is presently a void concerning nonprotective funds at private\nresidences which will probably need to be remedied through authorization\nfor appropriations to a new account within the Executive Office.\nThere may also be other appropriation accounts which supply property to\nprivate residences. For example, the Department of Defense supplies\nsome property in the course of providing communications, emergency\nrelocation, and food service at the private residences of the President.\nGeneral Lawson, Chief Military Aide to the President is familiar with the\nnature and extent of Defense property furnished at private residences.\nProblems Posed by this Bill\nUnder the bill, protective property would be provided by the Secret\nService at only one designated private residence for the President and\nanother for the Vice President. No other agency could provide any\nproperty whatsoever except if funds were appropriated to the President\nor the Executive Office for private residences. The President and/or\nthe Executive Office would need an authorization and an appropriation\nbefore funds could be expended for property at private residences.\nThe bill is unacceptable in its current form because of inadequate pro-\nvision for nonprotective expenditures at the designated residences and\nfor protection and communications at additional private residences.\nThe provision for nonprotective expenditures at the designated residences\nis inadequate because all other agencies, including the Department of\nDefense, would be prohibited from supplying any property for communica-\ntions, emergency relocation, or food service as soon as the\nLIBRARY\n4\nsigned into law. There is no interim provision for the Executive Office\nor the President to provide this property until a separate authorization\nand appropriation are enacted. Therefore, the situation could develop\nwhere the President would be protected at the designated private residence\nbut have inadequate communications to lead the country if a crisis developed.\nThe limitation of S. 3515 could inadvertently create an alarming situation\nif the President decided to visit a second residence. No equipment of\nthe Secret Service or other government agency could be placed at, on,\nin or on the grounds of the private residence. A strict legal interpreta-\ntion of the bill could lead to the situation where the President is flown\nto his second residence, but must descend onto the helicopter pad via a\nrope ladder, the Secret Service agents must deplane the same way without\nany property (firearms) and all would then enter the private residence\nat which there was no government communications equipment.\nThe other sections of the bill regarding reporting of expendiutres, record-\nkeeping, and auditing duplicate current procedures. These sections are\nunnecessary, but they might be beneficial in preventing future controversy\nbecause of the elimination of doubt over what is the proper procedure.\nThere is one technical problem in these sections concerning the removal\nof protective property after the President's term has expired. The bill\nrequires removal of property which can reasonably be removed. To avoid\ncontroversy the words \"and economically\" should be added as a further\ndefinition of what is reasonable.\nSuggested Changes in S. 3515\nIf some limitation on expenditures at private residences is desirable to\nprevent future controversy, then we believe the following changes are\nessential:\n1. The same protection, communication and essential services\nprovided the President and Vice President when visiting\nsomeone else's residence should be provided on visits to\nhis own second or additional residences. To accomplish\nthis, the bill would need to exempt portable protective\nproperty, communication, and other essential services.\n2. Some interim provision must be added to provide communica-\ntion and other essential property at the designated\nresidence during the time between passage of this bill and\nan appropriation bill to provide funds to the Executive\nOffice for nonprotective property. One interim method\nwould be to allow the funds now appropriated for the\nExecutive Residence also to be expended for property\nat private residences. This might solve the communications\nproblem if the amounts spent were relatively small. In any\nFORD\nGERALD\nLIBRARY\n5\nevent, because of the prohibition against expenditures\nexcept from appropriations made directly to the President,\nsome provision would be required to provide funds for those\npurposes pending enactment of appropriations.\n3. Nonprotective funds should be authorized for appropriation\nin the bill (Section (f) (1) should be amended by adding\nbefore the period the following: \"; there is hereby authorized\nto be appropriated such sums as may be necessary\").\n4. Section (b) should include \"and economically\" after the word\nreasonably.\nThe bill does have some merit in that it eliminates the ad hoc provisions\nfor property at private residences which appear to have arisen over the\nyears It also could provide for nonprotective property, which is an area\nwhere there is currently a void and must be addressed at some future time.\nWhether all nonprotective property should be funded through one appropria-\ntion is difficult to evaluate without knowing the magnitude of such expendi-\ntures. Also some expenditures may be better left in the Defense Department\nbecause of national security concerns. It should be stressed that any\nappropriation provided for the President would also be the only appropriation\navailable to the Vice President for similar purposes.\nSummary\nOMB is not in a position to decide whether there should be a limit on the\nnumber of private residences in which protective property can be used.\nWe do believe that the limitations imposed by this bill are cumbersome\nand might result in a decrease in the protection and essential communica-\ntions provided the President and Vice President. We believe that present\nprocedures are adequate to assure Congressional oversight over protective\nexpenditures and prevent any future controversy in that area. However,\nsome provision for nonprotective property is probably needed for the\nfuture. If it is decided that a limitation on expenditures is needed\nto eliminate future controversy, then we believe that the perfecting\namendments suggested are essential.\nWally Scott\nAssociate Director for\nEconomics and Government\nAttachment\nGERALD\nADDENDUM\nA summary of provisions in the bill and current procedures follows:\nS. 3515 Subsection (a)\nNo funds other than provided in subsection (f) can be obligated or\nspent for property to protect the private residences of the President\nor Vice President unless the obligation or expenditure is made by the\nSecret Service, certified by the Director or Deputy Director of the\nSecret Service, and approved by the Director or Deputy Director of the\nSecret Service.\nCurrent Procedure\nFunds are appropriated directly to the Secret Service for protective\nproperty at private residences. Secret Service's procedures require\nthe Deputy Director of the Secret Service to approve a written request\nfor all protective expenditures at private residences.\nS. 3515 Subsection (b)\nAny property acquired for protection of private residences shall be\nremoved and returned to the Secret Service upon termination of the\nPresident's or Vice President's term of office unless if cannot\nreasonably be removed or the Director of the Secret Service deter-\nmines it is needed for the continuing protection of the former\nPresident or former Vice President.\nCurrent Procedure\nRemoval of protective property is required if the property can be\nreasonably and economically removed.\nS. 3515 Subsection (c)\nThe President and Vice President are each allowed to designate a\nsingle private residence for which funds for protective property\ncan be obligated in accordance with (a) above.\nCurrent Procedure\nThere is no limit on the number of private residences for which\nfunds for protective property can be obligated.\ni\nFORM\nLIBRANA\n2\nS. 3515 Subsection (d)\nRecords of obligations for these expenditures on private residences\nwill be reflected separately in the accounting system of the Secret\nService and accumulated on a current basis.\nCurrent Procedure\nRecords of expenditures on private residences are separately kept\nwithin Secret Service's appropriation and are accumulated on an\nannual basis.\nS. 3515 Subsection (e)\nThe Director of the Secret Service will report to the Congress no\nlater than February 1 of each year on the expenditures and the\nreasons why they were made. GAO can audit any of these records\non request from the Speaker of the House, President of the Senate,\nor the majority or minority heads of either the Senate or House of\nRepresentatives.\nCurrent Procedure\nGAO can audit all records of expenditures by the Secret Service.\nSecret Service and the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Govern-\nment Subcommittees of the Committee on Appropriations are formulating\nthe reporting procedures for expenditures at private residences.\nS. 3515 Subsection (f)\nAny funds used for any property at any private residence of the\nPresident or Vice President (other than that property provided for\nin (a) above) shall be appropriated directly to the President or\nthe Executive Office of the President. Records of the obligations\nshall be kept, reported to the Congress and subject to GAO audit.\nCurrent Procedure\nThe Secret Service provides all protective property. There appears\nto be no funds specifically authorized and appropriated for nonpro-\ntective property at private residences. The Department of Defense\nprovides some nonprotective property in the course of providing\ncommunications, emergency relocations, and food service to the\nCommander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Records of protective\nexpenditures are kept, reported to the Congress, and subject to\nGAO audit.\n/\nBERALD\nAugust 30, 1974\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nBILL TIMMONS\nFROM:\nPHIL BUCHEN\nSUBJECT:\nLegislation dealing with the\nPresident's residence\nSo far as I am concerned, the comments in the OMB\nmemorandum for Jerry Jones on 8. 3515 dated August 5,\n1974 (copy attached) represent an appropriate critique of\nsuch bill and could be the basis of followup for your letter\nof July 16 1974, to Senator Bill Brock.\nAttachments\nLyan May\nDERALO 1. FORD LIBRADA\nAugust 30, 1974\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nBILL TIMMONS\nFROM:\nPHIL BUCHEN\nSUBJECT:\nLegislation dealing with the\nPresident's residence\nSe far as x am concerned, the comments in the OMB\nmemorandum for Jerry Jenes on B. 3515 dated August 5.\n1974 (copy attached) represent an appropriate critique of\nsuch bill and could be the basis of followup for your letter\nof July 4 1974, to Senater Bill Brock.\nAttachments\ndei PWBuchen:ed Jerry Johns\nLyan May\nFORDS is LIBRARY QERALD\nAugust 30, 1974\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nBILL TIMMONS\nFROM:\nPHIL BUCHEN\nSUBJECT:\nLegislation dealing with the\nPresident's residence\nSo for as I am conserned, the comments in the OMB\nmemorandum for Jerry Jenes on S. 3515 dated August 5,\n1974 (copy attached) represent an appropriate critique of\nsuch bill and could be the basis of followup for your letter\nof July 4 1974, to Senster Bill Brock.\nAttachments\nLynn May\nFORD is LIBRARY\nAugust 30, 1974\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nBILL TIMMONS\nFROM:\nPHIL BUCHEN\nSUBJECT:\nLegislation dealing with the\nPresident's residence\nSo for as 1 am conserned, the comments in the OMB\nmemorandum for Jerry Jenes on s. 3515 dated August 5,\n1974 (copy attached) represent as appropriate eritique of\nsuch bill and could be the basis of followup for your letter\nof July 4 1974, to Senator Bill Brock.\nAttachments\nLynn May\nFORDO is LIBRARY\nAugust 30, 1974\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nBILL TIMMONS\nFROM:\nPHIL BUCHEN\nSUBJECT:\nLegislation dealing with the\nPresident's residence\nSo for as 1 am conserned, the comments in the OMB\nmemorandum for Jerry James on s. 3515 dated August 5,\n1974 (copy attached) represent as appropriate critique of\nsuch bill and could be the basis of followup for your letter\nof July 4 1974, to Senater Dill Brock.\nAttachments\nLynn May\nGERALD 4. LIBRARY FORD\nAugust 30, 1974\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nBILL TIMMONS\nFROM:\nPHIL BUCHEN\nSUBJECT:\nLegislation dealing with the\nPresident's residence\nSo far as I am concerned, the comments in the OMB\nmemorandum for Jerry Jones on S. 3515 dated August s,\n1974 (copy attached) represent as appropriate critique of\nsuch bill and could be the basis of followup for your letter\nof July 1, 1974, to Senater Bill Brock.\nAttachments\nLynn May\nFORD is LIBRARY GERALD\nAugust 30, 1974\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nBILL TIMMONS\nFROM:\nPHIL BUCHEN\nSUBJECT:\nLegislation dealing with the\nPresident's residence\nSo for as I am conserned, the comments in the OMB\nmemorandum for Jerry Jones on 8. 3515 dated August s,\n1974 (ongy attached) represent as appropriate critique of\nsuch bill and could be the back of follows for your letter\nof July L 1974, to Senster Bill Brock.\nAttachments\nPWBushen:ed\nBERALD 4. off\nAugust 30, 1974\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nBILL TIMMONS\nFROM:\nPHIL BUCHEN\nSUBJECT:\nLegislation dealing with the\nPresident's residence\nSo for as I am conserned, the comments in the OMB\nmemorandem for Jerry James on s. 3515 dated August 5,\n1974 (copy attached) represent as appropriate eritique of\nsuch bill and could be the basis of followsp for your letter\nof July 4 1974, to Senater Bill Breck.\nAttachments\nLynn May\nFORD : LIBRARY GERALD\nDEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY\nsee also\nUNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE\nPresident\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20223\nPersonal-\nOFFICE\nOF\nTHE DIRECTOR\n620.11\nNovember 14, 1974\n(ale res dence)\nNil\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 is LIBRARY 9EPALD\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nDate: December 16, 1974\nTO:\nPHILIP BUCHEN\nFROM: ANNE ARMSTRONG\nFor Your Information\nFor Appropriate Handling\nRemarks:\nI need your comments by noon Wednesday.\nIf I don't hear from you I'll assume\nyou concur as stated. Concur-P.W.B.\nBERRAD FORD LIBRARY\nDRAFT\n12-16-74\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nANNE ARMSTRONG\nSUBJECT:\nBicentennial and Longer Range Potential of Excess Federal\nLand in the Vicinity of Beltsville, Maryland\nThis memorandum relates to my duties in both the Federal Property Council\nand Bicentennial areas.\nSome 3,600 acres of land at the Agricultural Research Center in Beltsville,\nMaryland, have been reported to the General Services Administration as\nexcess to the needs of the Department of Agriculture.\nThe land is worth about $13 million but has been essentially unused since\n1971. It constitutes one of the few remaining undeveloped large-acreage\nareas in the Baltimore-National Capital area, a region which has a\nshortage of land set aside for recreation and conservation purposes.\nThere are numerous groups and individuals who are pressing the Federal\ngovernment to decide what is to be done with this valuable, too-long unused\nland. Some have requested that portions or all of it be made available to\nthe State of Maryland, Prince George's County, or certain educational\ninstitutions. Others, including Senators Mathias and Beall and Congressman\nHogan, favor Federal retention of the property as an entity, with it being\nused for recreation, conservation, and wildlife preservation activities.\nThe National Capital Bicentennial celebration also has a bearing upon the\nutilization of the Beltsville property. First, the Department of the\nInterior hopes to obtain 900 of the 3,600 excess acres for inc hision FOR\nIn\nCERALD.\nLIBRARY\n- 2 -\nits Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. The Department has funds earmarked\nfor a visitor's center which can be ready in 1976 provided work can\ncommence soon.\nSecond, the Beltsville property has the potential for alleviating the\nprojected Bicentennial shortages in both campsites and fringe parking\nspaces. More than 50% of the visitors to the National Capital Bicentennial\ncelebration are expected to arrive through the Baltimore-Washington highway\ncorridor, and the Beltsville property is located near the Baltimore-\nWashington Parkway. The land has the potential to provide 600 mobile\ncamper sites, which would reduce the estimated 5,700 campsite deficit by\nmore than 10%. Similarly, it could accommodate parking for 1,000 cars and\nbe useful in meeting some of the fringe parking needs on those special\ndays when abnormally large visitor influxes overload the normal fringe\nparking lots.\nFor those reasons, and because current parking plans could go awry, the\nWhite House Interagency Bicentennial Task Force wants to keep open the\noption of making camping and parking facilities available on the Beltsville\nproperty.\nHere are three options for your consideration:\n-- Option 1: The President announces that the excess land at Beltsville\nwill be committed to long-range recreation, conservation, wildlife\npreservation and related scientific and educational purposes; that the\nPatuxent Wildlife Research Center will receive 900 of the 3,600 excess\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\n- 3 -\nacres; that the Department of the Interior will undertake a study to\nrecommend the long-term management of the excess property, what\ninvestments will be required, and who (Federal, state, or local agency\nor combination thereof) should be assigned that responsibility; and\nthat, in the interim, the property will be available as a potential\nsupplement to the Bicentennial celebration camping and fringe parking\nplans.\n-- Option 2: The same as Option 1 except that a specific camping project\nwould be launched and would be Federally-sponsored, and a supplemental\n$1.5 million FY 75 appropriation would be sought to construct\nBicentennial facilities.\n-- Option 3: Transfer 900 of the 3,600 excess acres to the Department\nof the Interior for inclusion in the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center;\nforego all other Bicentennial potential land, without additional\nanalysis, abandon further Federal consideration of integrated long-\nrange planning for the remaining 2,700 excess acres; and immediately\nmake the property or portions thereof available to Federal agencies,\nthe State of Maryland, or local jurisdictions for a variety of potential\nuses.\nIn considering these three options and others, two criteria have been\nuppermost in my thinking. First, there is a real need to preserve the\nrecreation and conservation potential of the Beltsville property.\nSecond\nthe value of the land is due to its location and size, and every Deffort\n- 4 -\nshould be made to avoid a piece-meal disposition of the property. These\ntwo principles have been the common threads running through most of the\nproposals we have considered, and have been explicitly supported by the\ntwo Maryland Senators and the Congressman.\nOption 3 does not meet these two criteria, while Options 1 and 2 do.\nHowever, Option 2 necessitates an immediate Federal outlay of about $1.5\nmillion, and neither reprogramming the Department of Interior budget nor\nseeking an FY 1975 supplemental appropriation seem advisable at this time.\nTherefore, as Chairman of the Federal Property Council and as Chairman of\nthe White House Interagency Bicentennial Task Force, I recommend that you\nselect Option 1. Rog Morton and the members of the Federal Property Council\n(Roy Ash, Philip Buchen, Dean Burch, Alan Greenspan, Bill Timmons, and\nRuss Peterson) concur in this recommendation.\nIf you agree, there is attached for your signature at Tab A a memorandum\nthat will notify Secretary Morton of your decision and direct him to\nimplement it.\nAgree; implement Option 1.\nDisagree; prefer Option 2.\nDisagree, prefer Option 3.\nComments:\nBERALD FORD LIBRARY"
}