Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26417163
label
White House - Accounts (2)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26417163
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
White House - Accounts (2)
citationUrl
collections
Philip W. Buchen Files
Philip Buchen's General Subject Files
subjects
White House (Washington, D.C.)
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26417163
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-07-31
month
7
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1974-10-01
month
10
year
1974
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
3a6b77df7752b9af
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 66, folder "White House - Accounts (2)" of the
Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 66 of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
1:10 p.m.
Friday, March 21
Eva,
I had a call from a John Stevens in Boston who is the
collecting agent for Avis Rent-a-Car re a bill owed
to Avis by Eric Rosenberger of the Nessen staff. The
bill is for $222.37. Avis is supposedly bring a
civil suit against Mr. Rosenberger.
I spoke with Mr. Rosenberger regarding the call. He
indicated that he had spoken to Mr. Stevens and had
advised him to send whatever to him with a copy to
Mr. Buchen. He also indicated that the bill had been
sent to the White House (disbursement I guess) and
he thinks they may have paid the bill now (submitted
his claim twice). He didn't seem too interested in
really finding out whether the bill had been paid. He
also gave Mr. Stevens his room # as being 750 - EOB.
The telephone directory shows otherwise.
I called Jay and explained the matter to him. Jay
said he would speak to Mr. Rosenberger.
I have not mentioned to Mr. B. and think we should wait
if we tell him at all.
Shirley
FORD LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 3, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Jerry Jones
FROM:
Philip Buchen P.W.B.
I believe that you will find the attached memorandum
and opinion regarding GAO's lack of authority to audit
certain White House Office accounts to be of particular
interest.
My office is available for any continued assistance that
you require on this matter.
Enclosures
CC: Bob Linder
GRAUD FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 3, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
PHIL BUCHEN
FROM:
BARRY ROTH
Subject:
OLC Opinion On the GAO Request
to Audit the Presidential Travel
Account
The attached opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel responds
to a request from GAO to audit the Presidential Travel Account.
Basically, OLC makes the following conclusions:
1. GAO lacks the authority to audit the pre-FY
1975 accounts for Presidential travel, official
entertainment, newspapers, periodicals, and
teletype news service.
2. Despite a contrary intent by Congress in
eliminating the reference to a Presidential
certificate in the White House Office appropria-
tion, the appropriation only served to amend
3 U.S. C. 103 to expend $100, 000 for Presidential
travel, accountable only on the President's
certificate.
.
FORD
3. This change in the appropriation language does
subject to GAO audit FY 1975 expenditures by the
LIBRARY
White House Office for official entertainment, news-
papers, periodicals, teletype news service and the
hire of passenger motor vehicles (unless paid for from
the Presidential travel account).
4. The failure of the former President to account by
certificate for such expenditures does not allow GAO
to audit these accounts.
2
5. It is proper for a later President to certify
expenditures under a former President.
On this last point, I recommend that we prepare a certificate
for President Ford's signature only if this formality is insisted
upon by GAO after discussions with their auditors and the Staff
Secretary's office, in which Bob Linder has asked me to join
him. In addition, Jerry Jones should give some consideration
to the political reaction that may occur in the Congress as a
result of this opinion. My initial reaction is that this will
not have a great effect on whether the new White House
authorization bill will provide for the continued use of certificate
accounts. Congressional focus is more likely to be based on the
simpler issue of accountability, wholly apart from what was
allowed in the past.
R. FORD FIBRARY
JUN 3 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR HONORABLE PHILIP W. BUCHEN
Counsel to the President
Re: GAO audit of Presidential travel account
This is in response to your memorandum of May 2,
1975, requesting my views on the above subject.
Expenditures Prior to FY 1975
Prior to FY 1975 both 3 U.S.C. S 103 and the appli-
cable appropriation acts provided that Presidential
travel expenses were to be accounted for solely on the
certificate of the President. This has been the con-
sistent interpretation of those laws by this Office and
the old Bureau of the Budget--presumably accepted by
GAO itself--over the course of many administrations.
The interpretation by GAO of the 1974 White House appro-
priation, Pub. L. No. 93-143, 87 Stat. 516 (1973), based
merely on the grammatical structure of the sentence in
the appropriations act containing the certification
authority (and assuming the inapplicability of 3 U.S.C.
$ 103), concludes that only official entertainment ex-
penses of the President may be accounted for by certifi-
cate. Memorandum from General Counsel, Paul G. Dembling
to Director, FGMS, dated Mar. 27, 1975, at 2. This con-
clusion, however, ignores the legislative history of the
provision, central to which is the fact that the Presi-
dent's authority to account for certain White House
Office funds solely by certificate originated nearly
70 years ago specifically with regard to travel expenses
and that the President's travel expenses have been
accounted for solely by certificate ever since that time.
The first authorization and appropriation for
Presidential travel expenses was made by the Act of
June 23, 1906, C. 3523, 34 Stat. 454. That Act provided:
That hereafter there may be expended
for or on account of the traveling expenses of
the President of the United States such sum as
SEAL E. FORD FIBRARY
Congress may from time to time appropriate, not
exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars per annum,
such sum when appropriated to be expended in the
discretion of the President and accounted for on
his certificate solely.
There is hereby appropriated, out of any
money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated,
for the purposes authorized by this Act for the
fiscal year nineteen hundred and seven, the sum
of twenty-five thousand dollars.
(The first paragraph, or authorising paragraph, virtu-
ally unchanged except as to amount, is now found as
3 U.S.C. S 103). Beginning the next fiscal year, the
appropriation language took the form:
For traveling expenses of the President
of the United States, to be expended in his
discretion and accounted for on his certifi-
cate solely, twenty-five thousand dollars.
Act of March 4, 1907, C. 2918, 34 Stat. 1342.
This language in the annual appropriation acts remained
exactly the same until 1922, when the words "and official
entertainment" were inserted between "traveling" and
"expenses". Act of June 12, 1922, C. 218, 42 Stat. 636.
Both travel and entertainment expenses were now to be
accounted for solely by certificate. This language was
not changed until 1945, although the amount appropriated
varied during the depression years. The change in 1945
eliminated the separate appropriation for Presidential
travel and entertainment, instead including them as one
category of expenses under the appropriation for the
White House Office's salaries and expenses. The appli-
cable portion of that appropriation now read:
* and travel and official entertainment
expenses of the President, to be accounted for
on his certificate solely;
Act
of
May 3, 1945, C. 106, 59 Stat. 106.
Clearly, travel was still to be accounted for solely by
certificate. This language was unchanged until 1954
when it was changed only by the inclusion of three new
items to be accounted for by certificate, reading:
* newspapers, periodicals, teletype news
service, and travel and official entertainment
expenses of the President, to be accounted for
on his certificate solely;
Act
of
June 24, 1954, C. 359, 68 Stat. 273.
is
FORD
-2-
SEAL
This remained the language in the annual appropriation
acts until 1959, when a comma was added between "travel"
and "and." Act of July 8, 1959, Pub. L. No. 86-79, 73
Stat. 162. Whatever the explanation for this punctuation
change, it can hardly be thought to have overturned fifty
years of practice with regard to the accounting for
Presidential travel without some comment by Congress.
Indeed, travel expenses continued to be accounted for
solely on the President's certificate. In 1970 the
parenthetical limitation on the amount to be expended on
Presidential travel was added. Act of Sept. 26, 1970,
Pub. L. No. 91-422, 84 Stat. 876. This was done merely
to loosen the restriction of 3 U.S.C. S 103, which since
1946, Act of Aug. 2, 1946, c. 744, S 17(c), 60 Stat. 811,
had limited the amount expendable on Presidential travel
to $40,000. See Hearings on Department of Treasury and
Post Office and Executive Office Appropriations for 1971
Before the Subcomm. of the House Comm. on Appropriations,
91st Cong., 2d Sess., pt. 3, at 6 (1970). There is no
indication that it was meant to change the accounting for
those expenses. This language was continued through the
Executive Office Appropriation Act of 1974, Pub. L. No.
93-143, 87 Stat. 516.
As can be seen from this historical summary, the
category of expenses accountable solely on the President's
certificate began with travel expenses and was enlarged
to include the expenses of official entertainment, news-
papers, periodicals, and teletype news service. There is
not the slightest indication that the original practice
of accounting for travel expenses by Presidential certifi-
cate was ever intended to be cut back--at least until the
Executive Office Appropriation Act of 1975, Pub. L. No.
93-381, 88 Stat. 619 (hereinafter "the 1975 Act"). Finally,
as discussed below, the language in the appropriation
acts authorising the accounting for Presidential travel
by certificate was actually surplusage, since 3 U.S.C.
$ 103 explicitly provides for the President to account
for his travel expenses solely by certificate.
For these reasons it cannot be seriously doubted that,
at least until the 1975 Act, Presidential travel was
accountable solely by the President's certificate and was
not subject to GAO audit.
-3-
FY 1975 Expenditures
In the 1975 Act for the first time Congress did
not include the statement that Presidential travel and
entertainment expenses could be accounted for solely on
the President's certificate. This was not an oversight,
but rather the result of a deliberate attempt to subject
the handling of these expenses to GAO audits It is
my conclusion, however, that despite the intent of at
least those Congressmen who produced and urged this pro-
vision to bring Presidential expenses within GAO review,
the means chosen--deletion of the certification language
which had existed in previous appropriation acts--was not
equal to that purpose. That is, even without the certi-
fication language in the 1975 Act, the provision in
3 U.S.C. $ 103 remains, and this provision authorizes the
certification of all $100,000 of the Presidential travel
expenses paid for by the 1975 Act, not just the $40,000
mentioned in 3 U.S.C. S 103.
One must agree with GAO that "appropriation acts
may vary the terms of authorizing legislation to long as
a successful point of order challenging such variance is
not interposed. w Memorandum of Paul G. Dembling,
supra, at 3. Thus, viewing 3 U.S.C. S 103 as an authori-
zation statute, as GAO apparently does, id. at 2, the
language in the 1975 appropriation for Presidential
travel, "not to exceed $100,000," varies that phrase in
*/ The actual language in the White House Office appropri-
ation provision of the Act was inserted on the floor of the
House and Senate after the Conference Committee had met and
reported the bill, H.R. 15544, 93d Cong., 2d Sess., because
the Conference language had been keyed to a companion White
House Office authorization bill, H.R. 14715 and S. 3647,
which it was discovered would not pass. Senator Montoya,
chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and the
Senate manager in the Conference Committee, stated that the
new language was "completely in line with the authorizing
bill, and is only a technical expedient. 120 Cong.
Rec. S 15022 (daily ed. Aug. 15, 1974). The "authorizing
bill" would have, among other things, explicitly subjected
travel expenses to GAO audit, amending 3 U.S.C. $ 103.
See 120 Cong. Rec. H 5657-58 (daily ed. June 25, 1974)
(Eckhardt amendment to H.R. 14715) and 120 Cong. Rec.
S 12965-66 (daily ed. July 18, 1974) (Hathaway amendment to
S. 3647).
-4-
1.
DEPARTMENT
FORD
3 U.S.C. $ 103 that says "not exceeding $40,000 per annum."
If the 1975 Act had gone on to say that the expenditure
of these funds was to be subject to GAO audit, it would
likewise have varied that clause in Section 103 which
states: "such sum when appropriated to be
accounted
for on [the President's] certificate solely." The 1975
Act, however, did not so provide; it made no mention of
the means by which the expenditures were to be accounted
for. Thus, inasmuch as the provision dealing with account-
ing in 3 U.S.C. $ 103 was not varied, it was not affected
and it remains.
The President's travel funds may be accounted for
solely on his certificate up to the amount actually
appropriated by Congress. The $40,000 limitation in
Section 103 applies to the amount Congress may appropri-
ate (which limit was varied by the appropriation itself)
and is not a separate limit on the amount the President
may account for on his certificate. The "sum" which the
President may account for on his certificate is "such sum
as Congress may from time to time appropriate." Thus, even
for FY 1975, Presidential travel funds may be accounted
for on the President's certificate solely; this is not
true of official entertainment expenses and the expenses
of newspapers, periodicals, teletype news service, and the
hire of passenger motor vehicles (unless paid for from the
travel account), which no longer may be accounted for by
certificate.
Handling of Certificates
Your final inquiry involves the handling of the certi-
ficates. Initially, I must disagree with GAO that the
failure of the President to account by certificate for his
travel expenditures would subject those expenditures to GAO
audit. Section 103 of title 3 states that the sum appro-
priated is "to be accounted for on [the President's]
certificate solely." (Emphasis added). The 1974 appro-
priation act states similarly that the funds are "to be
accounted for solely on his certificate." (Emphasis added).
The obvious meaning of this language is that the certificate
is the sole means by which these funds shall be accounted
for. If the President fails to make such a certificate,
he may be violating the statute, but the remedy lies in
Congressional sanction. There is no basis for creating
out of whole cloth a different remedy--a GAO audit power in
flat contradiction to the statutory prescription that the
President's certificate is the sole means of accounting.
-5-
As to the form of the certificate: The minimum
legal requirement would seem to be simply a signed
statement by the President as to the number of dollars
expended from this appropriation and a declaration that
they were spent solely for Presidential travel expenses
as contemplated by the appropriation act. Clearly, a
later President may certify as to expenditures under a
former President.
Antonin Scalia
Assistant Attorney General
Office of Legal Counsel
1.
DEPARTMENT
FORD
-6-
LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 3, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
PHIL BUCHEN
FROM:
BARRY ROTH
Subject:
OLC Opinion On the GAO Request
to Audit the Presidential Travel
Account
The attached opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel responds
to a request from GAO to audit the Presidential Travel Account.
Basically, OLC makes the following conclusions:
1. GAO lacks the authority to audit the pre-FY
1975 accounts for Presidential travel, official
entertainment, newspapers, periodicals, and
teletype news service.
2. Despite a contrary intent by Congress in
eliminating the reference to a Presidential
certificate in the White House Office appropria-
tion, the appropriation only served to amend
3 U.S.C. 103 to expend $100, 000 for Presidential
travel, accountable only on the President's
certificate.
3. This change in the appropriation language does
subject to GAO audit FY 1975 expenditures by the
White House Office for official entertainment, news-
papers, periodicals, teletype news service and the
hire of passenger motor vehicles (unless paid for from
the Presidential travel account).
4. The failure of the former President to account by
certificate for such expenditures does not allow GAO
FORDO A STATE LIBRARY
to audit these accounts.
2
5. It is proper for a later President to certify
expenditures under a former President.
On this last point, I recommend that we prepare a certificate
for President Ford's signature only if this formality is insisted
upon by GAO after discussions with their auditors and the Staff
Secretary's office, in which Bob Linder has asked me to join
him. In addition, Jerry Jones should give some consideration
to the political reaction that may occur in the Congress as a
result of this opinion. My initial reaction is that this will
not have a great effect on whether the new White House
authorization bill will provide for the continued use of certificate
accounts. Congressional focus is more likely to be based on the
simpler issue of accountability, wholly apart from what was
allowed in the past.
STATE & 1040 LIBRARY
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL
Department of Justice
Mashington, D.C. 20530
JUN 3 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR HONORABLE PHILIP W. BUCHEN
Counsel to the President
Re: GAO audit of Presidential travel account
This is in response to your memorandum of May 2,
1975, requesting my views on the above subject.
Expenditures Prior to FY 1975
Prior to FY 1975 both 3. U.S.C. § 103 and the appli-
cable appropriation acts provided that Presidential
travel expenses were to be accounted for solely on the
certificate of the President. This has been the con-
sistent interpretation of those laws by this Office and
the old Bureau of the Budget--presumably accepted by
GAO itself--over the course of many administrations.
The interpretation by GAO of the 1974 White House appro-
priation, Pub. L. No. 93-143, 87 Stat. 516 (1973), based
merely on the grammatical structure of the sentence in
the appropriations act containing the certification
authority (and assuming the inapplicability of 3 U.S.C.
S 103), concludes that only official entertainment ex-
penses of the President may be accounted for by certifi-
cate. Memorandum from General Counsel, Paul G. Dembling
to Director, FGMS, dated Mar. 27, 1975, at 2. This con-
clusion, however, ignores the legislative history of the
provision, central to which is the fact that the Presi-
dent's authority to account for certain White House
Office funds solely by certificate originated nearly
70 years ago specifically with regard to travel expenses
and that the President's travel expenses have been
accounted for solely by certificate ever since that time.
The first authorization and appropriation for
Presidential travel expenses was made by the Act of
June 23, 1906, C. 3523, 34 Stat. 454. That Act provided:
That hereafter there may be expended
for or on account of the traveling expenses of
the President of the United States such sum as
Congress may from time to time appropriate, not
exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars per annum,
such sum when appropriated to be expended in the
discretion of the President and accounted for on
his certificate solely.
SEAL X. FORD LIBRARY
AME AMERICAN PRODUCTION
1776-1976
There is hereby appropriated, out of any
money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated,
for the purposes authorized by this Act for the
fiscal year nineteen hundred and seven, the sum
of twenty-five thousand dollars.
(The first paragraph, or authorizing paragraph, virtu-
ally unchanged except as to amount, is now. found as
3 U.S.C. § 103). Beginning the next fiscal year, the
appropriation language took the form:
For traveling expenses of the President
of the United States, to be expended in his
discretion and accounted for on his certifi-
cate solely, twenty-five thousand dollars.
Act of March 4, 1907, C. 2918, 34 Stat. 1342.
This language in the annual appropriation acts remained
exactly the same until 1922, when the words "and official
entertainment" were inserted between "traveling" and
"expenses". Act of June 12, 1922, C. 218, 42 Stat. 636.
Both travel and entertainment expenses were now to be
accounted for solely by certificate. This language was
not changed until 1945, although the amount appropriated
varied during the depression years. The change in 1945
eliminated the separate appropriation for Presidential
travel and entertainment, instead including them as one
category of expenses under the appropriation for the
White House Office's salaries and expenses. The appli-
cable portion of that appropriation now read:
* * and travel and official entertainment
expenses of the President, to be accounted for
on his certificate solely;
....
Act of
May 3, 1945, C. 106, 59 Stat. 106.
Clearly, travel was still to be accounted for solely by
certificate. This language was unchanged until 1954
when it was changed only by the inclusion of three new
items to be accounted for by certificate, reading:
* * newspapers, periodicals, teletype news
service, and travel and official entertainment
expenses of the President, to be accounted for
on his certificate solely;
Act of
June 24, 1954, C. 359, 68 Stat. 273.
-2-
FORD & SEATES LIBRARY
This remained the language in the annual appropriation
acts until 1959, when a comma was added between "travel"
and "and." Act of July 8, 1959, Pub. L. No. 86-79, 73
Stat. 162. Whatever the explanation for this punctuation
change, it can hardly be thought to have overturned fifty
years of practice with regard to the accounting for
Presidential travel without some comment by Congress.
Indeed, travel expenses continued to be accounted for
solely on the President's certificate. In 1970 the
parenthetical limitation on the amount to be expended on
Presidential travel was added. Act of Sept. 26, 1970,
Pub. L. No. 91-422, 84 Stat. 876. This was done merely
to loosen the restriction of 3 U.S.C. § 103, which since
1946, Act of Aug. 2, 1946, C. 744, § 17 (c), 60 Stat. 811,
had limited the amount expendable on Presidential travel
to $40,000. See Hearings on Department of Treasury and
Post Office and Executive Office Appropriations for 1971
Before the Subcomm. of the House Comm. on Appropriations,
91st Cong., 2d Sess., pt. 3, at 6 (1970). There is no
indication that it was meant to change the accounting for
those expenses. This language was continued through the
Executive Office Appropriation Act of 1974, Pub. L. No.
93-143, 87 Stat. 516.
As can be seen from this historical summary, the
category of expenses accountable solely on the President's
certificate began with travel expenses and was enlarged
to include the expenses of official entertainment, news-
papers, periodicals, and teletype news service. There is
not the slightest indication that the original practice
of accounting for travel expenses by Presidential certifi-
cate was ever intended to be cut back--at least until the
Executive Office Appropriation Act of 1975, Pub. L. No.
93-381, 88 Stat. 619 (hereinafter "the 1975 Act"). Finally,
as discussed below, the language in the appropriation
acts authorizing the accounting for Presidential travel
by certificate was actually surplusage, since 3 U.S.C.
§ 103 explicitly provides for the President to account
for his travel expenses solely by certificate.
For these reasons it cannot be seriously doubted that,
at least until the 1975 Act, Presidential travel was
accountable solely by the President's certificate and was
not subject to GAO audit.
-3-
PORTO STATE LIBRARY
FY 1975 Expenditures
In the 1975 Act for the first time Congress did
not include the statement that Presidential travel and
entertainment expenses could be accounted for solely on
the President's certificate. This was not an oversight,
but rather the result of a deliberate attempt to subject
the handling of these expenses to GAO addits It is
my conclusion, however, that despite the intent of at
least those Congressmen who produced and urged this pro-
vision to bring Presidential expenses within GAO review,
the means chosen--deletion of the certification language
which had existed in previous appropriation acts--was not
equal to that purpose. That is, even without the certi-
fication language in the 1975 Act, the provision in
3 U.S.C. § 103 remains, and this provision authorizes the
certification of all $100,000 of the Presidential travel
expenses paid for by the 1975 Act, not just the $40,000
mentioned in 3 U.S.C. § 103.
One must agree with GAO that "appropriation acts
may vary the terms of authorizing legislation to long as
a successful point of order challenging such variance is
not interposed. Memorandum of Paul G. Dembling,
supra, at 3. Thus, viewing 3 U.S.C. § 103 as an authori-
zation statute, as GAO apparently does, id. at 2, the
language in the 1975 appropriation for Presidential
travel, "not to exceed $100,000," varies that phrase in
*/ The actual language in the White House Office appropri-
ation provision of the Act was inserted on the floor of the
House and Senate after the Conference Committee had met and
reported the bill, H.R. 15544, 93d Cong., 2d Sess., because
the Conference language had been keyed to a companion White
House Office authorization bill, H.R. 14715 and S. 3647,
which it was discovered would not pass. Senator Montoya,
chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and the
Senate manager in the Conference Committee, stated that the
new language was "completely in line with the authorizing
bill, and is only a technical expedient.
"
120
Cong.
Rec. S 15022 (daily ed. Aug. 15, 1974). The "authorizing
bill" would have, among other things, explicitly subjected
travel expenses to GAO audit, amending 3 U.S.C. § 103.
See 120 Cong. Rec. H 5657-58 (daily ed. June 25, 1974)
(Eckhardt amendment to H.R. 14715) and 120 Cong. Rec.
S 12965-66 (daily ed. July 18, 1974) (Hathaway amendment to
S. 3647).
-4-
GERALD a. FORD LIBRARY
3 U.S.C. § 103 that says "not exceeding $40,000 per annum."
If the 1975 Act had gone on to say that the expenditure
of these funds was to be subject to GAO audit, it would
likewise have varied that clause in Section 103 which
states: "such sum when appropriated to be
accounted
for on [the President's] certificate solely." The 1975
Act, however, did not so provide; it made no mention of
the means by which the expenditures were to be accounted
for. Thus, inasmuch as the provision dealing with account-
ing in 3 U.S.C. § 103 was not varied, it was not affected
and it remains.
The President's travel funds may be accounted for
solely on his certificate up to the amount actually
appropriated by Congress. The $40,000 limitation in
Section 103 applies to the amount Congress may appropri-
ate (which limit was varied by the appropriation itself)
and is not a separate limit on the amount the President
may account for on his certificate. The "sum" which the
President may account for on his certificate is "such sum
as Congress may from time to time appropriate." Thus, even
for FY 1975, Presidential travel funds may be accounted
for on the President's certificate solely; this is not
true of official entertainment expenses and the expenses
of newspapers, periodicals, teletype news service, and the
hire of passenger motor vehicles (unless paid for from the
travel account), which no longer may be accounted for by
certificate.
Handling of Certificates
Your final inquiry involves the handling of the certi-
ficates. Initially, I must disagree with GAO that the
failure of the President to account by certificate for his
travel expenditures would subject those expenditures to GAO
audit. Section 103 of title 3 states that the sum appro-
priated is "to be
accounted for on [the President's]
certificate solely." (Emphasis added). The 1974 appro-
priation act states similarly that the funds are "to be
accounted for solely on his certificate." (Emphasis added).
The obvious meaning of this language is that the certificate
is the sole means by which these funds shall be accounted
for. If the President fails to make such a certificate,
he may be violating the statute, but the remedy lies in
Congressional sanction. There is no basis for creating
out of whole cloth a different remedy--a GAO audit power in
flat contradiction to the statutory prescription that the
President's certificate is the sole means of accounting.
FORD
-5-
LIBRARY
As to the form of the certificate: The minimum
legal requirement would seem to be simply a signed
statement by the President as to the number of dollars
expended from this appropriation and a declaration that
they were spent solely for Presidential travel expenses
as contemplated by the appropriation act Clearly, a
later President may certify as to expenditures under a
former President.
Antonin Scalia
Assistant Attorney General
Office of Legal Counsel
in
BEFORE
FORD
- -6-
LIBRARY
Friday 6/6/75
October 1975
12:05 I called the Green Book and asked if we need
to send our reservation for 1976 Green Books
in now -- as requested.
She said she would mark that we want two ---
and that there would be a reminder notice sent
out in October when the books were ready.
At that time, we can submit our card to
Mr. Linder's office and they can send in our
order for two copies.
R. FORD LIBRARY
(Advised Katie in Linder's office -- and she said
that was fine.)
WH accts
(see
Wednesday 6/11/75
11:55 Linder's office went to Barry to check the authority
WI curator)
on payment for insurance on the Hirshhorn pictures.
See copy of Barry memo to Linder (attached).
SEAL E. FORD LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
6/10/75
Eva -
FYI. Bob Lender ashed me
to chech on why we were
being billed for the first
tune in the history of the
w Lite House. I checked
with Peter Pawers, who
indicated that all was
an ever.
BR
June 10, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
BOB LINDER
FROM:
BARRY ROTH
I spoke with the General Counsel of the Smithsonian today
regarding the attached bills for insurance of pictures
from the Smithsonian on loan to the White House. After
checking, he indicated that this bill had been an error
and that it should be returned to:
Philip Babsock
Grants and Insurance Administration Division
Smithsoniam Institution
Washington, D.C. 20560
While their general policy is to require the insurance premium
to be paid by nom-governmental institutions, this is apparently
not yes the case with governmental. The General Counsel will
advise me if some future change in this policy is to occur.
If you have any farther questions, don't hemitate to contact me.
Attachments
BL:BR:fep
DERAIS A. FORD LIBRARY
ces Phillip W. Buchen
Buchen
THE WHITE HOUSE
Personal
WASHINGTON
W10.
May 26, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Jerry Jones
FROM:
Phil Buchen T.W.B.
SUBJECT:
Payment for insurance coverage
on the paintings loaned by the
Hirshhorn Museum
Attached is the invoice from the Smithsonian Institution
for insurance and service fee through June 30, 1975, on
Account Fund #011270, Certificate #1365, covering the
loan of paintings from the Hirshhorn Museum. It would
be appreciated if this could be paid from White House funds.
We have asked the Curator's Office to check on the amount
of future insurance premiums and have been advised that
the premium rate is 2¢ for each $100 evaluation. The
paintings are valued at $104, 000; therefore, they expect
the next bill to be $140, which would cover the first six
months of the next fiscal year.
SEAL B. FORD LIBRARY
WIT accts
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 6, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CONNOR
JERRY JONES
THROUGH:
PHIL BUCHEN P.W.B.
FROM:
BARRY ROTHBR
SUBJECT:
White House Authorization Bill
As we discussed, the inclusion of language in the proposed White
House Authorization Bill to provide for the acceptance of gifts and
the use of voluntary services will eliminate our present problem of
augmentation of appropriations. In your forthcoming discussions
with the Senate staff regarding this bill, I believe that you will be
able to get some feel for whether seeking this authority will
provoke serious opposition. The following language would
accomplish this purpose:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President
[and Vice President] may receive and use gifts of money
or services donated by others, if such gifts or services
are donated without restriction or condition other than
that they be used in furtherance of the duties and functions
of the White House Office [and the Office of the Vice
President].
For your discussions, you may wish to consider the following points:
(1) This authority is not unusual and is necessary in order
to permit the use of volunteers or reimbursement of the govern-
ment for travel costs from speaking to private groups. Various
agencies, including the Department of State and ARBA now have
similar authority.
(2) This authority allows official activities to be undertaken
without cost to the taxpayer.
SEALS R. FORD LIBRARY
-2- -
(3) The White House is acutely concerned with any
suggestions of a conflict of interest, and that problem will
be carefully considered prior to the acceptance of any gifts.
The adoption of this authority does not represent in any way
a lessening of this concern.
3 a. FORD LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 3, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CONNOR
FROM:
BARRY ROTH BR
Ray Zook advises that a chartered 727 to Denver for an overnight
stay and return the next day to Washington would cost approximately
$27,000, on the basis of his average costs for the last ten rentals
of such a plane. This figure is subject to a number of variables,
that can only be determined at the precise point in time such a
plane is needed, and which could change this figure. The 727
holds approximately 100 persons, making the approximate per
passenger cost of such a trip $270. It does not have the range
to fly non-stop to California.
Bill Gulley advises that the same trip to Denver aboard Air Force
One would cost $15,500. This plane has a capacity of either 52
or 54 passengers, for an approximate per passenger cost of
either $298 or $287.
Thus, our conclusion that the net per passenger costs of travel
aboard the charter or Air Force One is roughly equivalent is
accurate in this particular case.
cc: Phil Buchen
SEALO R. FORD LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 22, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JAMES E. CONNOR
THROUGH:
PHIL BUCHEN T.W.B.
FROM:
DUDLEY CHAPMAN
SUBJECT:
Hartmann Trip Expenses
The answers to Bob Hartmann's questions are:
1. There should be a travel request filed before departure.
An advance is possible but not necessary. Upon return, a voucher
must be completed covering all expenses and attaching bills.
2. Mrs. Hartmann's expenses should not be paid for by
the Government. (Note: Travel expenses for wives having no
official position are sometimes possible on overseas trips at State
Department expense. Domestically, when the spouse is not
representing the government in any official capacity, it has not
been the practice to reimburse the travel expenses.)
SEAL 11. FORD UBBARY
°
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 17, 1975
MEMORANDUM TO JAMES E. CONNOR
FROM:
ROBERT T. HARTMANN
PTA
The President has expressed his desire that I attend the
meeting of the Business-Government Relations Council at
Hot Springs, Virginia, September 25-28, as a representa-
tive from the White House staff and as a spokesman for
his policies. I have discussed this invitation with Phil
Buchen who advises that it is proper to accept it pro-
viding my travel and expenses are paid by the government
as official business on behalf of the President. I have
two questions:
1. Should I simply submit hotel bills, etc. for my actual
expenses when I return, or do I need to execute any paper
work in advance?
2. As Mrs. Hartmann is included in the invitation and the
members and other guests of the Council will be accompanied
by their wives, are her expenses also reimbursable?
cc: Philip W. Buchen
R. FORD LIBRARY
Manager.
Bethlehem
Steel
Corporation
FRED P. Zorr T1
overnment Anairs
Glass Works
Armstrong Cork Company
American Cyanamid Company
BUSINESS GOVERNMENT RELATIONS COUNCIL
1200 RING BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D. C. 20036
PHONE: 296-7569
General Co
August 11, 1975
WILLIAM K.
PLEASE REPLY TO: Emmett W. Hines, Jr.
Director, Government Rela
Armstrong Cork Company
1666 K Street, N.W.-Suite
Washington, D. C.
2000
Mr. Robert T. Hartmann
Counsellor to the President
The White House
Washington, D. C.
20500
Dear Bob,
On behalf of the Board of Directors and members of the Business-
Government Relations Council, I am inviting you and Mrs. Hartmann
to be our guests at our annual meeting on September 25-28, 1975
at The Homestead in Hot Springs, Virginia.
Our members, many of whom you already know, would like to have an
opportunity to get to know you better. Hopefully, you too will find
it valuable to get better acquainted with our members, as well as
with a very substantial number of chief executive officers from
member companies who will be attending with their wives.
The theme of the meeting is The Future of the American Corporation.
We have an outstanding group of speakers who will address themselves
to various aspects of this subject. I think you will find our meet:
interesting and very pertinent to your activities. I have enclosed
our schedule of events which describes our speakers and their subje
Wives and other guests are encouraged to participate in all parts O:
the program other than our Saturday morning members' breakfast.
I hope that you will be able to join us.
Sincerely
R. FORD LIBRARY
Emmett W. Hines, Jr.
DIRECTORS
ROBERT M. CLARK, Vice President, The Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company
ALLAN D. CORS, Director of
Affairs, Corning Glass Works
CARL J. FLEPS, Vice President-Government Relations, The Greyhound Corporation
D
GOODALL, Washington Corporate Representative, American Cyanamid Company
BRYCE N. HARLOW. Vice Presider
Government Relations, The Procter & Gamble Company EMMETT W. HINES, JR., Director, Government Relations, Armst
Company
EDD H. HYDE, Vice President, Reynolds Metals Company
RADY A. JOHNSON, Manager, Washington Office
Oil Co. (Indiana)
FRANK P. JONES, JR., Vice President, Government Relations, Aluminum Company of America
ROBERT MERCER, Director, Washington Services, Kennecott Copper Corporation
WILLIAM C. MURPHY, Director, G
Relations, Eli Lilly and Company
CARSTENS SLACK, Vice President, Phillips Petroleum Company
JOHN TOPE,
Republic Steel Corporation
WILLIAM E. WICKERT, JR., Manager, Bethlehem Steel Corporation
FRED P. ZOLL,
President, Libbey-Owens-Ford Company
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
I called Dudley to see what
the status of this was. He
indicates he will get to it
today. Please let me know
when it comes in if I don't
see it.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Wulley has
WASHINGTON
September 17, 1975
a copy Kandled?)
MEMORANDUM TO JAMES E. CONNOR
FROM:
ROBERT T. HARTMANN
RTA
The President has expressed his desire that I attend the
meeting of the Business-Government Relations Council at
Hot Springs, Virginia, September 25-28, as a representa-
tive from the White House staff and as a spokesman for
his policies. I have discussed this invitation with Phil
Buchen who advises that it is proper to accept it pro-
viding my travel and expenses are paid by the government
as official business on behalf of the President. I have
two questions:
1. Should I simply submit hotel bills, etc. for my actual
expenses when I return, or do I need to execute any paper
work in advance?
2. As Mrs. Hartmann is included in the invitation and the
members and other guests of the Council will be accompanied
by their wives, are her expenses also reimbursable?
CC: Philip W. Buchen
SERVICE it. FORD LIBRARY
ALLAN D. CORS, Vice President
EMMETT W. HINES, JR., President
DON ALLEN GOODALL, Secretary-Treasurer
Director of Government Affairs
Director, Government Relations
Washington Corporate Representative
Corning Glass Works
Armstrong Cork Company
American Cyanamid Company
BUSINESS- GOVERNMENT RELATIONS COUNCIL
1200 RING BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D. C. 20036
PHONE: 296-7569
General Counsel
August 11, 1975
WILLIAM K. KING
PLEASE REPLY TO: Emmett W. Hines, Jr.
Director, Government Relations
Armstrong Cork Company
1666 K Street, N.W.-Suite 205
Washington, D. C.
20006
Mr. Robert T. Hartmann
Counsellor to the President
The White House
Washington, D. C. 20500
Dear Bob,
On behalf of the Board of Directors and members of the Business-
Government Relations Council, I am inviting you and Mrs. Hartmann
to be our guests at our annual meeting on September 25-28, 1975
at The Homestead in Hot Springs, Virginia.
Our members, many of whom you already know, would like to have an
opportunity to get to know you better. Hopefully, you too will find
it valuable to get better acquainted with our members, as well as
with a very substantial number of chief executive officers from
member companies who will be attending with their wives.
The theme of the meeting is The Future of the American Corporation.
We have an outstanding group of speakers who will address themselves
to various aspects of this subject. I think you will find our meeting
interesting and very pertinent to your activities. I have enclosed
our schedule of events which describes our speakers and their subjects.
Wives and other guests are encouraged to participate in all parts of
the program other than our Saturday morning members' breakfast.
I hope that you will be able to join us.
Sincerely
BERALD R. FORD LIBRARY
Emmett W. Hines, Jr.
DIRECTORS
ROBERT M. CLARK, Vice President, The Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company ALLAN D. CORS, Director of Government
Affairs, Corning Glass Works
CARL J. FLEPS, Vice President-Government Relations, The Greyhound Corporation
DON ALLEN
GOODALL, Washington Corporate Representative, American Cyanamid Company BRYCE N. HARLOW, Vice President-National
Government Relations, The Procter & Gamble Company EMMETT W. HINES, JR., Director, Government Relations, Armstrong Cork
Company EDD H. HYDE, Vice President, Reynolds Metals Company
RADY A. JOHNSON, Manager, Washington Office, Standard
Oil Co. (Indiana) FRANK P. JONES, JR., Vice President, Government Relations, Aluminum Company of America
LYLE
ROBERT MERCER, Director, Washington Services, Kennecott Copper Corporation WILLIAM C. MURPHY, Director, Government
Relations, Eli Lilly and Company CARSTENS SLACK, Vice President, Phillips Petroleum Company JOHN TOPE, Manager,
Republic Steel Corporation WILLIAM E. WICKERT, JR., Manager, Bethlehem Steel Corporation
FRED P. ZOLL, Jr., Vice
President, Libbey-Owens-Ford Company
THE WHITE HOUSE
?
WASHINGTON
October 22, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CONNOR
FROM:
PHIL BUCHEN P.
SUBJECT:
Travel Expenses for Spouses
of Staff Members
Referencing your inquiry concerning the payment of Mrs. Goldwin's
expenses, the appropriated funds available for staff travel should
not be used for this purpose. GAO has ruled on several occasions
that any indirect benefits which the Government may derive
from the presence of the employee's wife cannot be used to
justify an increase in the cost of travel to the Government (see
e.g., B-116908, October 12, 1965, and B-147476, November 6,
1961).
I regret the confusion on this point. My office had addressed
only the questions of attendance at the dinner and the acceptance
of the expenses, and not the use of appropriated funds for travel
by a spouse.
SERVICE R. FORD LIBRARY
UNITED
CITIZEN ACCOUNTIN UFFICE
ess
COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
WASHINGTON 25
B-147476
November 6, 1961
Dear Mr. Secretary:
In your letter of October 25, 1961, you propose that the
current Government travel regulations and, if necessary the con-
trolling statutory provisions DC amended to permit, under appro-
priate circumstances, an official of the Government traveling on
business of the United States to "apply the value of the lowest
first-class fare authorized for himself to the purchase of tho
tourist or economy class fares for him and his wife. Your letter
indicates that the proposal relates to travel between the United
States and overseas areas and is promised upon your belief that
the United States would be better represented to other peoples of
the world if more wives traveled with their husbands. However,
you recognize that your proposal would require changes in existing
regulations and possibly in the statutes on which they are based.
Section 10 of the act of March 3, 1933, 47 Stat. 1516, amended
by section 6 of the act of August 2, 1946, 60 Stat. 808, 5 U.S.C.
73b, provides that:
"Whenover by or under authority of law actual
expenses for transportation may be allowed, such allow-
ances shall not exceed the lowest first-class rate by
the transportation facility used in such transportation
unless it is certified, in accordance with regulations
prescribed by the President, that lowest first-class
accommodations are not available or that use of a con-
partment or such other accomodations as may be author-
ized or approved by the head of the agency concerned or
such subordinates as he may designate, is required for
purposes of security."
The quoted section authorizes allowance to the traveler of the
actual expenses of transportation incurred when he travols on offi-
cial business to the extent that such actual expenses do not exceed
the lowest first-class rate by the transportation facility utilized.
The section procludes the allowance of any amount in excess of the
actual expenses 'so incurred. ive are aware of no statutory provision
authorizing the allowance of the expenses of transportation of the
dependents of an employee who may accoupany him on temporary duty,
unrelated to travol to a permanent post of assignment.
1.
STATE
FORD
LIBRARY
B-147476
Also, under current Standardized Government Travel Regulations
issued by the Bursau of the budget (see especially subjection C. of
section 3.6) an official traveler is expected to utilize "air coach,"
"tourist," etc., accomodations whenever such accommodations meet
reasonable and adequate standards for convenience, safety, comfort,
and meet his essential requirements for meeting appointments and
connections with other scheduled transportation. Such regulation
contemplates that first-class air accommodations will be used only
when lower-class accommodations are not reasonably adequate from the
standpoint of those factors. Concerning use of lower than first-
class accommodations for train and steamer travel see sections 3.6a.
and b. of those regulations.
Accordingly, we are of the opinion that legislation would be
necessary to provide a legal basis for your proposal, and suggest
that if you wish to pursuo the matter further appropriate steps be
taken to recommend legislation for consideration by the Congress.
Sincerely yours,
JOSEPH CAMPBELL
Comptroller General
of the United States
The Honorable
The Secretary of Labor
-2-
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Copy
pestarry.
Otober 20, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
PHIL BUCHEN
FROM:
JIM CONNOR
As you will note from the attached, Dr. Goldwin has requested
White House travel funds for both himself and his wife to
attend the 10th anniversary dinner of The Public Interest.
Although the memo indicates he consulted the Counsel's office
and they advised 'it is all right to attend the dinner but
not
accept the reimbursement from the magazine for expenses being
offered to all out-of-town guests" I am not clear whether
you have advised that it is all right to pay Mrs. Goldwin's
expenses. As you may know, it has never been our policy
to pay expenses of wives on occasions like this.
Encl.
SERVICE 11. FORD LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 17, 1975
MEMORANDUM TO:
JAMES CONNOR
FROM:
ROBERT GOLDWIN nos
I would like to request White House travel funds for both myself
and Mrs. Goldwin to attend the 10th anniversary dinner of The
Public Interest. The Counsel's office has advised me that it is
all right to attend the dinner, but advised that I not accept the
reimbursement from the magazine for expenses being offered to all
out-of-town guests.
Because of the character of this dinner, the attendance of the
wife is considered essential. We expect to meet a number of
people who are useful in my work, including participants in past
seminars as well as possible participants for the future. Since
I would be able to see them at this dinner, it is quite possible
that this one trip would save several future trips to prepare
seminars.
STATE R. FORD LIBRARY
COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20548
OCT 12 1965
B-116908
Mr. T. C. Crabe
Authorized Certifying Officer
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Dear Mr. Crabe:
On September 17, 1965, your reference BFA-2, you requested our
decision whether you may properly certify for payment the enclosed
voucher to reimourse Mr. John S. Brown, an employee of the National
Acronautics and Space Administration, the travel expenses he incurred
incident to his travel to various places in the Pacific and Far East
during November and December 1964.
Mr. Brown nerformed the travel in question for the purpose of
accompanying members of the Committee on Science and Astronautics of
the House of Representatives on an official tour and inspection of
National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Air Force tracking
stations in the Pacific area. Travel was performed by Government-
owned aircraft and Mr. Brown's wife as well as the wives cf other
membérs of the group traveled with the tour and inspection team.
In view of the circumstances of the travel Mr. Brown was author-
ized subsistence at not to exceed $30 per day in lieu of per diem as
authorized by the second proviso of section 3 of the Travel Expense
Act of 1949, approved June 9, 1949, ch. 185, 63 Stat. 166, as amended,
5 U.S.C. 836,1 which is as follows:
* And provided further, That where due to the
unusual circumstances of a travel assignment the maximum
per diem allowance would be much less than the amount
required to meet the actual and necessary expenses of the
trip, the heads of departments and establishments may, in
accordance with regulations promulgated by the Director,
Bureau of the Budget, pursuant to section 840 of this
title, prescribe conditions under which reimbursement for
such expenses may be authorized on an actual expense basis
not to exceed a maximum amount to be specified in the travel
authorization, but in any event not to exceed, for each day
in travel status, (1) the amount of 830, within the limits
of the continental United States, or (2) the sum of the
maximum per diem allowance plus $10, for travel outside
such limits."
SEAL n. FORD LIBRARY
B-116908
You ask the following question with regard to the amount of
reimbursement Mr. Brown may be allowed for the lodging expenses he
incurred:
"1. If a civilian officer or employee traveling on
official business, under orders authorizing reimbursement
of subsistence expenses on an actual expense basis under
section 3 of the Travel Expense Act of 1549, 63 Stat. 166,
as amended, 5 U.S.C. 336, shares a hotel room, motel room
or other lodging accommodations with one or more members
of his family, is the Government liable for:
"(a) That portion of the cost equal to the cost estab-
lished for the hotel room, notel room, or other lodging
accommodations for single occupancy of the space? or
"(b) The quotient of the cost resulting from multiple
occupancy divided by the number of occupants?"
Travel costs chargeable to the Government may not be increased
by reason of the fact that an employee's wife accompanies him on
official travel for personal reasons. Any indirect benefits which the
Government may derive from the presence of the employee's wife cannot
be used to justify an increase in the cost of travel to the Government.
B-147476, November 6, 1961.7 On the other hand, the saving realized
by an employee who is accompanied by his wife as a result of the fact
that the established rates for the travel or accommodation of two
persons are not equal to twice the rate applicable to travel or accom-
modation of one person need not be prorated between the Government and
the employee. See 33 Comp. Gen. 434.
Therefore, if it is determined that Mr. Brown would have used
the same accommodation at the single occupant rate and not some less
expensive accommodation had his wife not accompanied him, he may be
reimbursed on the basis of such single occupancy rate rather than at
one-half of the double occupancy rate.
We note that the voucher submitted does not include the conversion
rates of the various foreign currencies in which the accompanying
receipts are stated as required by section 12.9 of the Standardized Govern-
ment Travel Regulations. Furthermore, the voucher does not clearly iden-
tity daily expenditures for lodging and mcals--especially the $73.05
ciaimed for meals and refresements aboard the Goverrment-furnished aircraft
--as required by section 6.12 f,of those regulations, As & result the
- 2 -
B-116908
information furnished with the voucher is not sufficient to allow
computation of Mr. Brown's daily subsistence excenses 30 that such
expenses may be compared to the daily naximum allowable in the
locality 01 travel. Upon furnishing of the information required by
the Standardizen Government Travel kegulationsithe voucher, which is
returned horewith, may be certified for payment in accordance with
one above ii otherwise correct.
Sincerely yours,
FRANK H. WEITZEL
Acting Comptroller General
of the United States
Enclosure
- 3 -
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 28, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
SHEILA WEIDENFELD
THROUGH:
PHIL BUCHEN
T.W.B.
FROM:
BARRY ROTH
SUBJECT:
Press Travel Account
for the First Lady
In accordance with our conversation, attached is a draft memorandum
from you to representatives of the media who wish to travel with the
First Lady. The memo requires each such traveler to pay a small
deposit in advance of the trip in order to eliminate the need of members
of your staff to use their personal funds for this purpose.
I suggest you entitle this account the "Press Travel Account, " and
that you authorize one member of your staff to sign the checks. As
we discussed, the account will be initially capitalized in the amount
of $10 from your personal funds, and which you intend to recoup as
part of the operating costs of the first trip following establishment
of the account.
In handling this account, the following guidelines should be observed
at all times:
1. All expenditures must be supported by appropriate
documentation.
2. With the exception of the $10 referenced above, no funds
are to be deposited in this account except from the news media
traveling with the First Lady.
BERALD R. FORD LIBRARY
-2-
3. No funds from any political committee are to be
deposited in this account, nor any expenditures made to any
political committee. If you feel that you are required to make
a payment to such a committee for services they may have
rendered on behalf of the media, please contact this office at
once to discuss the particular circumstances of such cases.
4. No expenditures are to be made except in connection
with travel by the news media. No funds may be loaned to representa-
tives of the media or the White House staff for their personal purposes.
5. The financial records from this account will be available
for inspection by representatives of the media, or appropriate
Federal agency, e.g., The Federal Election Commission. Should
such a request be made, please contact this office to coordinate
your response.
If you have any additional questions, please contact me.
F.
DEPARTMENT
1
LIBRARY
DRAFT -- November 28, 1975
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
MEMORANDUM FOR:
[MEMBERS OF THE FIRST
LADY'S PRESS CORPS]
FROM:
SHEILA WEIDENFELD
SUBJECT:
Travel with the First Lady
In order to make arrangements in advance for various services
required by the media accompanying the First Lady while on
travel, e.g., busses, press suites, office equipment, etc., it
is frequently necessary that payments be made in advance for at
least some of these items. Until now, such advance payments
have been made from the personal funds of members of my
staff, pending reimbursement from the media. For reasons I
am sure you will understand, this practice has proven to be
unsatisfactory.
Accordingly, we have established a Press Travel Account which
will be used to collect funds received from the media for its pro
rata share of the expenses of travel with the First Lady. In order
to make payments from this account before reimbursement in full
is received from you, it is necessary that each representative of
the media wishing to travel with the First Lady make a [$25.00]
deposit check, payable to the "Press Travel Account", at least
[three] days prior to each trip. -This amount will be credited
against the total amount due for each trip.
This account is used only for the various expenses incurred on behalf
of the media in connection with such travel, and its records will be
available by appointment for your inspection should you so desire.
I trust you will appreciate the need for this new procedure and I
will be pleased to respond to any questions you may have in this
regard.
a.
Thank you for your cooperation.
SECURITY
FORD
LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 27, 1976
Dear Mr. Staats:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft report of
the audit of the White House Office for the period July 1, 1969,
through August 9, 1974, the closing date of the previous adminis-
tration. The audit was directed at evaluating the system of con-
trols over receipts and disbursements for the operation of the
Office.
As noted in your report, the accounting system for the White House
Office was approved by the Comptroller General in 1969. We agree
with your assessment that most of the deficiencies discussed in the
report would not have occurred if the approved procedures had been
followed. The audit points to the need for improvements in docu-
menting procurement actions, in property accounting and physical
inventory procedures, in the system of controls over receipts and
disbursements, and in reporting reimbursements. The report lists
examples to support these findings and makes specific recommenda-
tions to improve operations. It also recommends that an internal
audit staff be established to insure effective control over and
accountability for all funds, property and other assets.
As the report states, a number of corrective actions have already
been taken. These include:
Procurement documents are being filed together
and uniform procedures established to show
authorization for purchase and receipt of goods.
Physical inventories are being conducted on a
regular basis and property records are being
up-dated to reflect the results of these inven-
FORD LIBRARE
tories. Improved procedures are being
implemented for property accountability.
Reimbursements are now being reported to the
Office of Management and Budget as required.
- 2 -
In addition, the following actions are being taken to improve
operations:
Payroll procedures are being changed to establish
uniform practices for personnel keeping leave,
time and attendance reports and retirement records.
Automatic data processing systems are being studied
with a view toward improving the accounting system
and internal controls.
The feasibility of establishing an internal audit staff
will be studied further and pursued with other
agencies in the Executive Office of the President.
We appreciate the constructive nature of this audit and trust that
our planned improvements will remedy the deficiencies.
Sincerely,
Philyw.Bucken
Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
The Honorable Elmer B. Staats
Comptroller General of the United States
Washington, D. C. 20548
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 26, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
PHIL BUCHEN
THROUGH:
JIM GONNOR
FROM:
BOB LINDER hinder
SUBJECT:
Proposed response to GAO audit
On January 2, 1975 you requested GAO to conduct an audit of the
White House accounts (Tab A). The audit has now been completed
and a draft report has been sent to you for review and comment
(Tab B). A proposed response for your consideration is at Tab C.
The audit covers the approximate time of the last administration,
from July 1, 1969 to August 9, 1974. Although a number of
improper or unsupported transactions were found, no formal
exceptions are being taken by GAO.
One item of particular interest in the report is the transfer of nearly
$34,000 from the CIA to the WHO in fiscal year 1971 as reimburse-
ment for printing and mailing responses to Presidential correspondence
on the Cambodian invasion. The reimbursement was termed "improper"
by the President's Commission on CIA Activities in the United States
(Rockefeller report) and GAO has taken a similar position.
The recommendations for improving the systems of control over
operations are reasonable and we have, in fact, been taking actions
to comply with them.
Your reply will be printed in the final report and copies of the report
will be sent to the Chairmen of the House and Senate Committees on
Government Operations and Appropriations and the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget.
I will be happy to discuss the specific recommendations and findings
with you at your convenience.
RECOMMENDATION:
That you sign the proposed reply at Tab C.
CC: Dick Cheney
UNITED
STATES
OFFICE GENERAL
UNITED STATES GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20548
DIVISION OF FINANCIAL AND
GENERAL management STUDIES
B-133209
JUL 1 1976
Mr. Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
The White House
Dear Mr. Buchen:
Enclosed are two copies of a draft of our proposed report. The
draft report is furnished for review and comments before it is issued
in final form.
Our general practice is to furnish copies of proposed reports to
the agency for comments and to consider such comments before the
report is issued in final form. It is also our general practice to
include a copy of the written comments in our report when issued.
We would appreciate receiving your comments within 30 days.
Your attention is directed to the limitations on the use of this
draft as indicated on the report cover. We request that safeguards
be imposed to prevent the premature or unauthorized use of this
report.
The findings included in this report were discussed with officials
of the White House. We will be glad to further discuss this draft
report with you. Any inquiries concerning it should be directed to
Mr. John J. Cronin, Jr., Assistant Director (634-5217).
Sincerely yours,
D. L. Scantlebury
Director
Enclosures
(Draft Report--FGMSD-76-34)
SEAL is. FORD LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 2, 1975
Dear Mr. Staats:
This letter is to request an audit of the White House accounts
by the General Accounting Office. I respectfully request that
such an audit be made to settle the accounts of the accountable
officers and suggest that the period of the review be from the
time of the last settlement audit of June 30, 1969 through
August 9, 1974.
I believe it is appropriate to conduct such a review during this
transition period and the closing date mentioned above would
complete the audit of accounts through the end of the previous
administration.
The General Accounting Office is presently conducting a. com-
prehensive audit of White House expenses incurred to date in
connection with the transition. When the transition audit is
complete, we will be able to furnish whatever assistance you
may require for the settlement audit. If this timing is suitable
to you, arrangements to begin may be made with Mr. Robert D.
Linder of the White House staff.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
The Honorable Elmer B. Staats
Comptroller General of the United States
Washington, D.C. 20548
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 2, 1975
Dear Mr. Staats:
This letter is to request an audit of the White House accounts
by the General Accounting Office. I respectfully request that
such an audit be made to settle the accounts of the accountable
officers and suggest that the period of the review be from the
time of the last settlement audit of June 30, 1969 through
August 9, 1974.
I believe it is appropriate to conduct such a review during this
transition period and the closing date mentioned above would
complete the audit of accounts through the end of the previous
administration.
The General Accounting Office is presently conducting a com-
prehensive audit of White House expenses incurred to date in
connection with the transition. When the transition audit is
complete, we will be able to furnish whatever assistance you
may require for the settlement audit. If this timing is suitable
to you, arrangements to begin may be made with Mr. Robert D.
Linder of the White House staff.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
Philip Buchen
Counsel to the President
The Honorable Elmer B. Staats
Comptroller General of the United States
Washington, D. C. 20548