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
4520878
label
Protection - Procurement of Property for the Protection of the President
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4520878
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Protection - Procurement of Property for the Protection of the President
citationUrl
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
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
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
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
58f149ef197e0c0e
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 57, folder "Protection - Procurement of
Property for the Protection of the President" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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 57 of the Philip Buchen Files
at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Date 8/23/74
TO:
PHIL BUCHEN
FROM:
JERRY H. JONES
Could we have your comments
and recommendation on the
attached as soon as possible.
Thank you.
July 1, 1974
Dear Bill:
Many thanks for your letter of June 28th
concerning S. 3515, the measure you have
introduced which relates to the procure-
ment of property for the protection of the
President and Vice President at private
residences.
I will study this proposal carefully and
will be back in touch with you on my
comments soon.
With warmest regards,
Sincerely,
William E. Timmons
Assistant to the President
Honorable Bill Brock
United States Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510
Sec: Jerry Jones w/incoming to staff a reply on substance
and return to WET.
WET:SJH:ajb
FORD i LIBRARY 076830
BILL BROCK
COMMITTEES:
TENNESSEE
BANKING, HOUSING AND
URBAN AFFAIRS
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING
United States Senate
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510
June 28, 1974
JUL 1 1974
Mr. William E. Timmons
Assistant to the President
for Legislative Affairs
The White House Office
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Bill:
Enclosed is a copy of S. 3515 along with my intro-
ductory remarks. The bill is simple, straightforward,
and is based primarily on a report published by the
General Accounting Office (number B-155950).
Please analyze S. 3515 and the attached remarks and
advise me of your reaction to the bill. Any sugges-
tions for improvement would, of course, be much
appreciated.
For the full particulars on any aspect of this bill,
contact J.V. Crockett of my staff at 225-9583. Thank
you for your assistance.
Very truly yours,
San
BB:cnr
Enclosures
R.
GERALD
FORD
LIBRARY
Congressional Record
United States
of America
PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE
93ᵈ
CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
Vol. 120
WASHINGTON, TUESDAY, MAY 21, 1974
No. 71
Senate
States will incur the appropriate ex-
GSA is invited to do more than simply
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED
pense for providing security. I think this
execute Secret Service requesst, particularly
BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
is a fair and reasonable condition. We do
when requests are vague or general.
provide for the President the White
GAO believes that these weaknesses call
PRESIDENTIAL SECURITY BILL
House, as well as Camp David for relax-
for the appropriation of funds directly to
By Mr. BROCK:
ation. One additional house of his
the Secret Service to finance reimburse-
choice-making a total of three-seems
ments to other agencies for certain assist-
S. 3515. A bill relating to the procure-
ance. In this respect, changes being made
ment of property for the protection of
to me eminently reasonable. If one does
in the financing of GSA public buildings ac-
the President and Vice President at pri-
not accept this position, then I think
tivities will require that the Secret Service
vate residences. Referred tó the Commit-
we are entitled to ask-what is a reason-
obtain appropriations and reimburse GSA
tee on Government Operations.
able number, and on what grounds is it
for protective assistance beginning in fiscal
Mr. BROCK. Mr. President, one of the
arrived at? Presumably no one would
year 1975.
unfortunate byproducts of the whole
suggest that we spend the money on an
GAO believes that the Secret Service
Watergate debacle has been the contro-
unlimited number of houses a President
should take the steps necessary now to in-
versy which has swirled around the
may want to own. The other parts of the
sure that its accounting system will ac-
bill I think too are sensible and non-
cumulate and classify costs to properly meet
money spent for protection at Presiden-
the external as well as internal needs for cost
tial and Vice-Presidential homes. In the
controversial. What they do is to set up
data.
fevered political atmosphere of the past
a straightforward and clear procedure
Also, GAO believes that additional control
year we have had a whole barrage of
for authorizing funds spent on security
of expenditures at private residences can be
often conflicting accusative claims and
and other functions and an equally clear
had through the use of independent audits.
emotional statements regarding the
system of congressional audit and over-
Source: GAO report #B-155950; Protec-
propriety of expenditures for the Presi-
sight.
tion of the President at Key Biscayne and
San Clemente, p. 4.
dent's security.
There are certain significant problems
I firmly believe that so much of this
with our present set up-problems
Mr. BROCK. Thus, in line with their
could have been avoided if we had de-
which the GAO in its report points out.
recommendations, a basic requirement of
veloped fully adequate procedures for
I can do no better than quote their re-
the bill is that security money is to be
disbursement of funds for this service
port and so ask unanimous consent that
spent by the Secret Service after it is
and a comprehensive set of guidelines
part of the summary dealing with budg-
certified by the Director or his deputy as
regarding their use. It is over 10 years
eting, accounting and auditing be
necessary for security; and that a sepa-
since the assassination of President Ken-
printed in the RECORD at this point.
rate record accumulated on a current
nedy. In the aftermath of that tragedy,
There being no objection, the excerpts
basis is to be kept by the Secret Service
we very naturally exhibited greatly in-
were ordered to be printed in the REC-
of how much is spent. Then. not later
creased concern with Presidential secu-
ORD, as follows:
than February 1 of each year. the Direc-
rity. Now, while no less concerned with
BUDGETING, ACCOUNTING. AND AUDITING
tor shall submit to the congressional
that matter, I feel a general consensus
GAO reviewed the experience of 1968-1973
leadership a report detailing the amount
exists that some proper and standardized
in terms of budgeting, accounting, and
spent. what it was spent on, and why
set of accounting and reporting proce-
auditing with a view to Identifying what
the Secret Service deemed it necessary.
dures should be established-so that
has been done or still needs to be done to
Should there be any debate or con-
there can be no repetition in the future
strengthen control by the Congress and
troversy about any of these items, the
of our present controversy.
promote understanding by the public.
GAO will, at the request of the Speaker
Pursuant to 1968 legislation the Secretary
That is why I am introducing today a
of the House, President pro tempore of
Service began to draw heavily on GSA an-
measure designed to achieve that very
propriations made available for Secret Serv-
the Senate, or majority and minority
goal. It is based firmly and squarely on a
ice protective functions with its requests for
leaders of the House and Senate. audit
study made by the General Accounting
assistance. It is GSA policy not to question
any part of the report. Property or ob-
Office of this issue, and their subsequent
Secret Service requests. This arrangement
jects which are provided by public funds
report.
has the following weaknesses.
shall. if reasonably possible, be removed
GSA funds are not directly associated with
after the President or Vice President
It is a simple and straightforward bill,
Secret Service protective activities during the
leaves office-unless required for security
and certainly places no restriction on
budget preparation and review process.
reasons on a long-term basis.
future Presidents-other than the con-
A casual attitude in authorizing work is
Any funds which are spent for uses
dition that both the President and the
fostered. Because most requests during the
Vice President shall each designate one
construction period were verbal, who made
other than security would be appropri-
private residence at which the United
requests or precisely what was requested
ated directly to the President or the
could not be readily determined.
Executive Office. He would then make a
938839
LIBRARY
report to Congress each year in the same
"(1) incurred or made by the Secret
or Minority Leader of either the Senate or the
manner as the Secret Service's, specify-
Service:
House of Representatives, the Comptroller
ing the amounts spent and the reasons.
"(2) certified by the Director or Deputy
General shall audit any report under para-
Again. if there is any debate, the GAO
Director of the Secret Service as necessary
graph (1). The Director of the Secret Serv-
for the protection of the President or Vice
ice shall accord the Comptroller General, in
can audit the disputed items.
President, as the case may be; and
the conduct of such audit, complete access
Mr. President, as you can see, the
"(3) approved by the Director or Deputy
to all records, files, and documents relating
measure clarifies the procedure consid-
Director of the Secret Service.
to each obligation or expenditure covered
erably. There can be no more future con-
"(b) Any property which is acquired by
by the report.
troversy about how many residences the
the obligation or expenditure of funds in
"(f) (1) Any funds used for the purchase,
Secret Service has spent money on-
accordance with subsection (a), and which
lease, construction, installation. or place-
every one will know in advance that only
can reasonably be removed from the resi-
ment of any property at, on, in. or on the
one private residence is applicable.
dence or grounds thereof shall, upon termi-
grounds of, any private residence of the Pres-
nation of the term of office of the President
ident or Vice President (other than property
There will be no more confusion over
or Vice President, as the case may be. be
acquired by the obligation or expenditure of
what was spent on grounds of security,
removed from such residence and returned
funds in accordance with subsection (a))
and what was not. The security budget
to the Director of the Secret Service unless
shall be appropriated directly to the Presi-
will be separate, clear and open with the
the Director determines that such removal
dent or the Executive Office of the President.
rationale for all expenditures explained.
would impair the effectiveness of the Secret
"(2) Not later than February 1 of each
Service in carrying out any continuing re-
Similarly, the money spent at other
year, the President shall transmit to the
sponsibility under the law to protect the
Speaker of the House of Representatives, the
Presidential houses for facilities essential
President or Vice President after termina-
President pro tempore of the Senate. and the
for the proper operation of the Presi-
tion of such term of office.
Majority and Minority Leaders in the Senate
dency will be equally clear and explained.
"(c) The President and Vice President may
and the House of Representatives a report,
Any disputes can be resolved by a non-
each designate one private residence with
setting forth in detail, with respect to the
partisan and professional GAO audit.
respect to which funds may be made avail-
preceding fiscal year-
All in all, Mr. President, I feel this
able pursuant to subsection (a) of this sec-
"(A) the amount of each obligation or
bill is a moderate and eminently sensible
tion by notifying the Director of the Secret
expenditure of funds pursuant to this sub-
Service of the residence so selected, and no
measure to improve the system of pro-
section, including a full explanation of the
funds to which subsection (a) of this sec-
purposes for which such obligation or ex-
viding Presidential security, and to
tion applies shall be available with respect
penditure has been made; and
clarify the budgeting and accounting of
to any personal residence other than the
"(B) the reasons why he deemed the use
funds spent on Presidential property. It
one so designated.
of such funds proper in each instance.
is a bill which I am sure will interest
"(d) The Director of the Secret Service
"(3) Upon the request of the Speaker of
those who wish to end the ambiguities
shall cause the record of any obligation or
the House of Representatives, the President
and confusion of our present system.
expenditure made in accordance with sub-
pro tempore of the Senate, or the Majority
I ask unanimous consent that the bill
section (a) of this section to be-
or Minority Leader of either the Senate or
"(1) reflected, in the accounting system
at this point be presented in full in the
the House of Representatives, the Comptroller
of the Secret Service, in an account separate
General shall audit any report under para-
RECORD.
from accounts of other obligations and ex-
graph (2). The President shall accord the
There being no objection, the bill was
penditures of the Secret Service; and
Comptroller General, in the conduct of such
ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as
"(2) accumulated on a current basis.
audit, complete access to all records, files.
follows:
"(e) (1) Not later than February 1 of each
and documents relating to each obligation or
S. 3515
year, the Director of the Secret Service shall
expenditure covered by the report."
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
transmit to the Speaker of the House of
(b) The analysis of chapter 2 of title 3,
Representatives of the United States of
Representatives, the President pro tempore
United States Code, is amended by adding at
America in Congress assembled, That (a)
of the Senate, and the Majority and Minority
the end thereof the following:
chapter 2 of title 3, United States Code, is
Leaders of the Senate and the House of Rep-
"§ 112. Procurement of Property for Protec-
amended by adding at the end thereof the
resentatives, a report setting forth in de-
tion of President and Vice Presi-
following new section:
tall, with respect to the preceding fiscal
dent at Private Residences."
"§ 112. Procurement of Property for Protec-
year-
tion of President and Vice Presi-
"(A) the amount of each obligation or
dent at Private Residences.
expenditure of funds in accordance with
subsection (a) of this section, including a
"(a) Except as provided in subsection (f),
full explanation of the purposes for which
no funds authorized to be appropriated un-
such obligation or expenditure has been
der any provision of law shall be available
made: and
for obligation or expenditure for the pro-
"(B) the reasons why he deems the expend-
tection of the President or the Vice President
iture or obligation of such funds necessary
through the purchase, lease, construction,
for the protection of the President or Vice
installation. or placement of any property at,
President.
on, in. or on the grounds of, any private
"(2) Upon the request of the Speaker of
residence of the President or Vice President
the House of Representatives, the President
unless such obligation or expenditure is-
pro tempore of the Senate, or the Majority
FORD
GERALD
LIBRARY
93D CONGRESS
2D SESSION
S. 3515
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
MAY 21, 1974
Mr. BROCK introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred
to the Committee on Government Operations
A BILL
Relating to the procurement of property for the protection of
the President and Vice President at private residences.
1
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 That (a) chapter 2 of title 3, United States Code, is amended
4 by adding at the end thereof the following new section:
5 "§ "§112. Procurement of property for protection of Presi-
6
dent and Vice President at private residences
7
"(a) Except as provided in subsection (f), no funds
8 authorized to be appropriated under any provision of law
9 shall be available for obligation or expenditure for the pro-
10 tection of the President or the Vice President through the
FORD a 071839 LIBRARY
11 purchase, lease, construction, installation, or placement of
II
2
1 any property at, on, in, or on the grounds of, any private
2 residence of the President or Vice President unless such obli-
3 gation or expenditure is-
4
(1) incurred or made by the Secret Service;
5
" (2) certified by the Director or Deputy Director
6
of the Secret Service as necessary for the protection of
7
the President or Vice President, as the case may be; and
8
(3) approved by the Director or Deputy Director
9
of the Secret Service.
10
" (b) Any property which is acquired by the obligation
11 or expenditure of funds in accordance with subsection (a),
12 and which can reasonably be removed from the residence
13 or grounds thereof shall, upon termination of the term of
14 office of the President or Vice President, as the case may
15 be, be removed from such residence and returned to the
16 Director of the Secret Service unless the Director deter-
17 mines that such removal would impair the effectiveness of
18 the Secret Service in carrying out any continuing respon-
19 sibility under the law to protect the President or Vice
20 President after termination of such term of office.
21
" (c) The President and Vice President may each
22 designate one private residence with respect to which
23 funds may be made available pursuant to subsection (a)
FORD
24 of this section by notifying the Director of the Secret
25 Service of the residence SO selected, and no funds to which
3
1 subsection (a) of this section applies shall be available with
2 respect to any personal residence other than the one SO
3 designated.
4
"(d) The Director of the Secret Service shall cause
5 the record of any obligation or expenditure made in accord-
6 ance with subsection (a) of this section to be-
7
" (1) reflected, in the accounting system of the
8
Secret Service, in an account separate from accounts
9
of other obligations and expenditures of the Secret
10
Service; and
11
" (2) accumulated on a current basis.
12
" (e) (1) Not later than February 1 of each year,
13 the Director of the Secret Service shall transmit to the
14 Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President
15
pro tempore of the Senate, and the majority and minority
16 leaders of the Senate and the House of Representatives, a
17 report setting forth in detail, with respect to the preceding
18 fiscal year-
19
"(A) the amount of each obligation or expendi-
20
ture of funds in accordance with subsection (a) of
21
this section, including a full explanation of the purposes
22
for which such obligation or expenditure has been made;
23
and
24
" (B) the reasons why he deems the expenditure or
4
1
obligation of such funds necessary for the protection of
2
the President or Vice President.
3
(2) Upon the request of the Speaker of the House of
4 Representatives, the President pro tempore of the Senate, or
5 the majority or minority leader of either the Senate or the
6 House of Representatives, the Comptroller General shall
7 audit any report under paragraph (1) . The Director of the
8 Secret Service shall accord the Comptroller General, in the
9 conduct of such audit, complete access to all records, files,
10 and documents relating to each obligation or expenditure
11 covered by the report.
12
" (f) (1) Any funds used for the purchase, lease, con-
13 struction, installation, or placement of any property at, on, in,
14 or on the grounds of, any private residence of the President
15 or Vice President (other than property acquired by the obli-
16 gation or expenditure of funds in accordance with subsec-
17 tion (a)) shall be appropriated directly to the President or
18 the Executive Office of the President.
19
(2) Not later than February 1 of each year, the Pres-
20 ident shall transmit to the Speaker of the House of Representa-
21 tives, the President pro tempore of the Senate, and the ma-
FORD
22 jority and minority leaders in the Senate and the House
23 Representatives a report, setting forth in detail, with respect
LIBRARY
24 to the preceding fiscal year-
25
" (A) the amount of each obligation or expenditure
5
1
of funds pursuant to this subsection, including a full ex-
2
planation of the purposes for which such obligation or
3
expenditure has been made; and
4
" (B) the reasons why he deemed the use of such
5
funds proper in each instance.
6
" (3) Upon the request of the Speaker of the House of
7 Representatives, the President pro tempore of the Senate, or
8 the majority or minority leader of either the Senate or the
9 House of Representatives, the Comptroller General shall
10 audit any report under paragraph (2) The President shall
11 accord the Comptroller General, in the conduct of such audit,
12 complete access to all records, files, and documents relating
13 to each obligation or expenditure covered by the report.".
14
(b) The analysis of chapter 2 of title 3, United States
15 Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
"112. Procurement of property for protection of President and Vice Presi-
dent at private residences.".
R.
FORD
GERALD
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
AUG
5
1974
MEMORANDUM FOR JERRY JONES
Subject: Comments on S. 3515
This is in reply to your request to the Director of July 8, 1974, for
comments and recommendations on S. 3515, a bill introduced by Senator
Brock relating to procurement of property for the protection of the
President and Vice President at private residences.
The Lill (1) prohibits all expenditures (except those provided in (3)
below) for protective property at the private residences of the President
and Vice President unless the expenditure is approved and made by the
Secret Service; (2) further limits these expenditures to a single private
residence to be designated by the President and another designated by the
Vice President; (3) prohibits all other expenditures for property at pri-
vate residences except such funds as may be appropriated to the President
or the Executive Office of the President (according to Senator Brock's
comments in the Congressional Record, this section is intended to cover
only non-protective expenses but from a strict legal interpretation the
section could also cover protective expenses at additional private
residences); and (4) mandates certain procedures for recordkeeping,
reporting, auditing, and authorization for public monies spent on private
residences by the Secret Service and by the President or the Executive
Office. A more detailed summary of the bill and a comparison with current
procedures is included in the addendum.
The main objective of the bill is to prevent future controversy over monies
spent on private residences, such as the controversy which occurred in 1973
when Congressional Committees examined this issued and the General Accounting
Office (GAO) issued a report on December 18, 1973, on Protection of the
President at Key Biscayne and San Clemente. The GAO report and many
Congressmen have criticized some acquisitions of property for private
residences and the methods to control such expenditures. Many of the crit-
icisms over methods to control such expenditures have been met and several
of the provisions in this bill have thus been overtaken by recent changes
in statute and procedures which improve the control within the Executive
Branch and by the Congress over such expenditures.
is
FORD
CARALD
2
Past Procedures
Before the controversy arose over expenditures at private residences and
prior to July 1, 1974, the General Services Administration (GSA) received
appropriations from the Congress for "Operating Expenses" of the Public
Buildings Service which paid for the rental, operation, protection and
utilization of Government-owned and leased buildings. This appropriation
also provided for " fencing, lighting, guard booths, and other facilities
on private or other property not in Government ownership or control as
may be appropriate to enable the United States Secret Service to perform
its protective functions
II
GSA thus provided all funds for protective
property at private residences of the President and Vice President.
GSA also made some expenditures, which GAO, in its report, considered to
be for nonprotective property. These included the installation of flagpoles
and the renovation of the den at San Clemente into an office. GSA defended
these expenditures as II a logical extension of GSA's authority to provide
administrative support to the Executive Office of the President. = GAO
criticized these nonprotective expenditures as well as certain protective
expenditures. After the controversy had arisen, the Congress, in the
language of the FY 1974 appropriations act (P.L. 93-143, October 30, 1973),
directed that quarterly reports of expenditures on private residences be
submitted by GSA to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and the
Senate.
Current Procedures
On July 1, 1974, certain provisions of the Public Building Amendments of 1972
(P.L. 92-313, June 16, 1972) became effective which restricted GSA's ability
to fund other Executive branch agencies building improvements or furnishings.
These provisions provided that executive agenies would obtain individual
appropriations for rent and related costs of space instead of GSA obtaining
all funds in one appropriation. This Act, and the FY 1975 appropriations bill,
which under the continuing resolution on appropriations is controlling,
eliminated GSA's authority and funds to provide property at private
residences unless reimbursed from the funds of, and directed by, another
Federal agency. Funds are now appropriated directly to the Secret Service
for protection at private residences to provide for = fencing, lighting,
guard booths and other facilities on private or other property not in
Government ownership or control as may be necessary to perform protective
functions
=
Therefore the Secret Service has authorization and appropriations for
protective property at the private residences of the President and Vice
President. This new funding procedure fixes accountability and Congressional
oversight for such expenditures. The lack of accountability and Congressional
oversight was one of GAO's criticisms in its report.
FORD
GERALD
LIBRARY
3
Other GAO critisims have also been overcome through the adoption of new
procedures. The Secret Service now requires written requests for all
expenditures for property at private residences and these requests must
be approved in writing by the Deputy Director of the Secret Service.
The method and type of report on such expenditures, which will be
required by the Congress, is being formulated by the Secret Service
and its Appropriations Subcommittee. The funds for protection at
private residences are kept separately within the Secret Service
appropriation and are subject to GAO audit.
The GAO critisms over nonprotective funds have also been alleviated--at
least for the present. GSA's funds for such purposes have been eliminated,
and there are no other funds specifically authorized for nonprotective
purposes. Some support is provided by the Department of Defense with
respect to the President's position as Commander in Chief.
Theoretically, nonprotective funds for private residences could be
appropriated to a new appropriations account within the Executive Office
of the President. However, there is no authorization for such appropria-
tion within the Executive Office and thus no funds are available. There-
fore, there is presently a void concerning nonprotective funds at private
residences which will probably need to be remedied through authorization
for appropriations to a new account within the Executive Office.
There may also be other appropriation accounts which supply property to
private residences. For example, the Department of Defense supplies
some property in the course of providing communications, emergency
relocation, and food service at the private residences of the President.
General Lawson, Chief Military Aide to the President is familiar with the
nature and extent of Defense property furnished at private residences.
Problems Posed by this Bill
Under the bill, protective property would be provided by the Secret
Service at only one designated private residence for the President and
another for the Vice President. No other agency could provide any
property whatsoever except if funds were appropriated to the President
or the Executive Office for private residences. The President and/or
the Executive Office would need an authorization and an appropriation
before funds could be expended for property at private residences.
The bill is unacceptable in its current form because of inadequate pro-
vision for nonprotective expenditures at the designated residences and
for protection and communications at additional private residences.
The provision for nonprotective expenditures at the designated residences
is inadequate because all other agencies, including the Department of
Defense, would be prohibited from supplying any property for communica-
tions, emergency relocation, or food service as soon as the bill were
4
signed into law. There is no interim provision for the Executive Office
or the President to provide this property until a separate authorization
and appropriation are enacted. Therefore, the situation could develop
where the President would be protected at the designated private residence
but have inadequate communications to lead the country if a crisis developed.
The limitation of S. 3515 could inadvertently create an alarming situation
if the President decided to visit a second residence. No equipment of
the Secret Service or other government agency could be placed at, on,
in or on the grounds of the private residence. A strict legal interpreta-
tion of the bill could lead to the situation where the President is flown
to his second residence, but must descend onto the helicopter pad via a
rope ladder, the Secret Service agents must deplane the same way without
any property (firearms) and all would then enter the private residence
at which there was no government communications equipment.
The other sections of the bill regarding reporting of expendiutres, record-
keeping, and auditing duplicate current procedures. These sections are
unnecessary, but they might be beneficial in preventing future controversy
because of the elimination of doubt over what is the proper procedure.
There is one technical problem in these sections concerning the removal
of protective property after the President's term has expired. The bill
requires removal of property which can reasonably be removed. To avoid
controversy the words "and economically" should be added as a further
definition of what is reasonable.
Suggested Changes in S. 3515
If some limitation on expenditures at private residences is desirable to
prevent future controversy, then we believe the following changes are
essential:
1. The same protection, communication and essential services
provided the President and Vice President when visiting
someone else's residence should be provided on visits to
his own second or additional residences. To accomplish
this, the bill would need to exempt portable protective
property, communication, and other essential services.
2. Some interim provision must be added to provide communica-
tion and other essential property at the designated
residence during the time between passage of this bill and
an appropriation bill to provide funds to the Executive
Office for nonprotective property. One interim method
would be to allow the funds now appropriated for the
Executive Residence also to be expended for property
at private residences. This might solve the communications
problem if the amounts spent were relatively small. In any
FORD
5
event, because of the prohibition against expenditures
except from appropriations made directly to the President,
some provision would be required to provide funds for those
purposes pending enactment of appropriations.
3. Nonprotective funds should be authorized for appropriation
in the bill (Section (f) (1) should be amended by adding
before the period the following: "; there is hereby authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary").
4. Section (b) should include "and economically" after the word
reasonably.
The bill does have some merit in that it eliminates the ad hoc provisions
for property at private residences which appear to have arisen over the
years It also could provide for nonprotective property, which is an area
where there is currently a void and must be addressed at some future time.
Whether all nonprotective property should be funded through one appropria-
tion is difficult to evaluate without knowing the magnitude of such expendi-
tures. Also some expenditures may be better left in the Defense Department
because of national security concerns. It should be stressed that any
appropriation provided for the President would also be the only appropriation
available to the Vice President for similar purposes.
Summary
OMB is not in a position to decide whether there should be a limit on the
number of private residences in which protective property can be used.
We do believe that the limitations imposed by this bill are cumbersome
and might result in a decrease in the protection and essential communica-
tions provided the President and Vice President. We believe that present
procedures are adequate to assure Congressional oversight over protective
expenditures and prevent any future controversy in that area. However,
some provision for nonprotective property is probably needed for the
future. If it is decided that a limitation on expenditures is needed
to eliminate future controversy, then we believe that the perfecting
amendments suggested are essential.
Wall 67 Scott
Associate Director for
Economics and Government
Attachment
ADDENDUM
A summary of provisions in the bill and current procedures follows:
S. 3515 Subsection (a)
No funds other than provided in subsection (f) can be obligated or
spent for property to protect the private residences of the President
or Vice President unless the obligation or expenditure is made by the
Secret Service, certified by the Director or Deputy Director of the
Secret Service, and approved by the Director or Deputy Director of the
Secret Service.
Current Procedure
Funds are appropriated directly to the Secret Service for protective
property at private residences. Secret Service's procedures require
the Deputy Director of the Secret Service to approve a written request
for all protective expenditures at private residences.
S. 3515 Subsection (b)
Any property acquired for protection of private residences shall be
removed and returned to the Secret Service upon termination of the
President's or Vice President's term of office unless if cannot
reasonably be removed or the Director of the Secret Service deter-
mines it is needed for the continuing protection of the former
President or former Vice President.
Current Procedure
Removal of protective property is required if the property can be
reasonably and economically removed.
S. 3515 Subsection (c)
The President and Vice President are each allowed to designate a
single private residence for which funds for protective property
can be obligated in accordance with (a) above.
Current Procedure
There is no limit on the number of private residences for which
funds for protective property can be obligated.
2
S. 3515 Subsection (d)
Records of obligations for these expenditures on private residences
will be reflected separately in the accounting system of the Secret
Service and accumulated on a current basis.
Current Procedure
Records of expenditures on private residences are separately kept
within Secret Service's appropriation and are accumulated on an
annual basis.
S. 3515 Subsection (e)
The Director of the Secret Service will report to the Congress no
later than February 1 of each year on the expenditures and the
reasons why they were made. GAO can audit any of these records
on request from the Speaker of the House, President of the Senate,
or the majority or minority heads of either the Senate or House of
Representatives.
Current Procedure
GAO can audit all records of expenditures by the Secret Service.
Secret Service and the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Govern-
ment Subcommittees of the Committee on Appropriations are formulating
the reporting procedures for expenditures at private residences.
S. 3515 Subsection (f)
Any funds used for any property at any private residence of the
President or Vice President (other than that property provided for
in (a) above) shall be appropriated directly to the President or
the Executive Office of the President. Records of the obligations
shall be kept, reported to the Congress and subject to GAO audit.
Current Procedure
The Secret Service provides all protective property. There appears
to be no funds specifically authorized and appropriated for nonpro-
tective property at private residences. The Department of Defense
provides some nonprotective property in the course of providing
communications, emergency relocations, and food service to the
Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Records of protective
expenditures are kept, reported to the Congress, and subject to
GAO audit.
tono
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 23, 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR:
PHILIP BUCHEN
SUBJECT:
Legislation Dealing with the Presidents
Residence.
Attached is an OMB memorandum regarding S. 3515 and a copy of proposed
testimony by the Treasury Department on H.R. 11499. Both of these bills
would regulate and limit government procurement for the protection of
Presidential and Vice Presidential homes. Bill Skidmore of OMB and I
have coordinated on this and have asked that GSA and Treasury (Secret
Service) examine both bills to determine their impact. Questions about
the Presidents' home, however, are perhaps more properly a matter for
the Counsel's Office than the Domestic Council.
If you wish, however, that we continue to gather the opinions of the agencies,
we will be glad to do so. If it is determined that the bills are unacceptable,
it is very likely that Senator Brock could be worked with to provide an
agreeable bill. Hearings took place before the House on the 20th of August
at which time GSA read a prepared report. They were postponed at the
request of Treasury prompted by OMB to provide time for the White House
to study the bill. Treasury and DOD are scheduled to report when the hear-
ings resume and as yet their statements have not been cleared by OMB.
If I can be of any help in this matter, please let me know.
8
F. Lynn May
Staff Assistant
Domestic Council
cc: Ken Cole
Stan Ebner
Bill Casselman
Attachment
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
AUG 5
1974
MEMORANDUM FOR JERRY JONES
Subject: Comments on S. 3515
This is in reply to your request to the Director of July 8, 1974, for
comments and recommendations on S. 3515, a bill introduced by Senator
Brock relating to procurement of property for the protection of the
President and Vice President at private residences.
The bill (1) prohibits all expenditures (except those provided in (3)
below) for protective property at the private residences of the President
and Vice President unless the expenditure is approved and made by the
Secret Service; (2) further limits these expenditures to a single private
residence to be designated by the President and another designated by the
Vice President; (3) prohibits all other expenditures for property at pri-
vate residences except such funds as may be appropriated to the President
or the Executive Office of the President (according to Senator Brock's
comments in the Congressional Record, this section is intended to cover
only non-protective expenses but from a strict legal interpretation the
section could also cover protective expenses at additional private
residences); and (4) mandates certain procedures for recordkeeping,
reporting, auditing, and authorization for public monies spent on private
residences by the Secret Service and by the President or the Executive
Office. A more detailed summary of the bill and a comparison with current
procedures is included in the addendum.
The main objective of the bill is to prevent future controversy over monies
spent on private residences, such as the controversy which occurred in 1973
when Congressional Committees examined this issued and the General Accounting
Office (GAO) issued a report on December 18, 1973, on Protection of the
President at Key Biscayne and San Clemente. The GAO report and many
Congressmen have criticized some acquisitions of property for private
residences and the methods to control such expenditures. Many of the crit-
icisms over methods to control such expenditures have been met and several
of the provisions in this bill have thus been overtaken by recent changes
in statute and procedures which improve the control within the Executive
Branch and by the Congress over such expenditures.
SERALD FORD LIBRAND
2
Past Procedures
Before the controversy arose over expenditures at private residences and
prior to July 1, 1974, the General Services Administration (GSA) received
appropriations from the Congress for "Operating Expenses" of the Public
Buildings Service which paid for the rental, operation, protection and
utilization of Government-owned and leased buildings. This appropriation
also provided for = fencing, lighting, guard booths, and other facilities
on private or other property not in Government. ownership or control as
may be appropriate to enable the United States Secret Service to perform
its protective functions = GSA thus provided all funds for protective
property at private residences of the President and Vice President.
GSA also made some expenditures, which GAO, in its report, considered to
be for nonprotective property. These included the installation of flagpoles
and the renovation of the den at San Clemente into an office. GSA defended
these expenditures as " a logical extension of GSA's authority to provide
administrative support to the Executive Office of the President as GAO
criticized these nonprotective expenditures as well as certain protective
expenditures. After the controversy had arisen, the Congress, in the
language of the FY 1974 appropriations act (P.L. 93-143, October 30, 1973),
directed that quarterly reports of expenditures on private residences be
submitted by GSA to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and the
Senate.
Current Procedures
On July 1, 1974, certain provisions of the Public Building Amendments of 1972
(P.L. 92-313, June 16, 1972) became effective which restricted GSA's ability
to fund other Executive branch agencies building improvements or furnishings.
These provisions provided that executive agenies would obtain individual
appropriations for rent and related costs of space instead of GSA obtaining
all funds in one appropriation. This Act, and the FY 1975 appropriations bil
which under the continuing resolution on appropriations is controlling,
eliminated GSA's authority and funds to provide property at private
residences unless reimbursed, from the funds of, and directed by, another
Federal agency. Funds are now appropriated directly to the Secret Service
for protection at private residences to provide for # fencing, lighting,
guard booths and other facilities on private or other property not in
Government ownership or control as may be necessary to perform protective
functions
=
Therefore the Secret Service has authorization and appropriations for
protective property at the private residences of the President and Vice
President. This new funding procedure fixes accountability and Congressiona'
oversight for such expenditures. The lack of accountability and Congression
oversight was one of GAO's criticisms in its report.
FORD
CERALD
3
Other GAO critisims have also been overcome through the adoption of new
procedures. The Secret Service now requires written requests for all
expenditures for property at private residences and these requests must
be approved in writing by the Deputy Director of the Secret Service.
The method and type of report on such expenditures, which will be
required by the Congress, is being formulated by the Secret Service
and its Appropriations Subcommittee. The funds for protection at
private residences are kept separately within the Secret Service
appropriation and are subject to GAO audit.
The GAO critisms over nonprotective funds have also been alleviated--at
least for the present. GSA's funds for such purposes have been eliminated
and there are no other funds specifically authorized for nonprotective
purposes. Some support is provided by the Department of Defense with
respect to the President's position as Commander in Chief.
Theoretically, nonprotective funds for private residences could be
appropriated to a new appropriations account within the Executive Office
of the President. However, there is no authorization for such appropria-
tion within the Executive Office and thus no funds are available. There-
fore, there is presently a void concerning nonprotective funds at private
residences which will probably need to be remedied through authorization
for appropriations to a new account within the Executive Office.
There may also be other appropriation accounts which supply property to
private residences. For example, the Department of Defense supplies
some property in the course of providing communications, emergency
relocation, and food service at the private residences of the President.
General Lawson, Chief Military Aide to the President is familiar with the
nature and extent of Defense property furnished at private residences.
Problems Posed by this Bill
Under the bill, protective property would be provided by the Secret
Service at only one designated private residence for the President and
another for the Vice President. No other agency could provide any
property whatsoever except if funds were appropriated to the President
or the Executive Office for private residences. The President and/or
the Executive Office would need an authorization and an appropriation
before funds could be expended for property at private residences.
The bill is unacceptable in its current form because of inadequate pro-
vision for nonprotective expenditures at the designated residences and
for protection and communications at additional private residences.
The provision for nonprotective expenditures at the designated residences
is inadequate because all other agencies, including the Department of
Defense, would be prohibited from supplying any property for communica-
tions, emergency relocation, or food service as soon as the bill were
4
signed into law. There is no interim provision for the Executive Office
or the President to provide this property until a separate authorization
and appropriation are enacted. Therefore, the situation could develop
where the President would be protected at the designated private residence
but have inadequate communications to lead the country if a crisis developed.
The limitation of S. 3515 could inadvertently create an alarming situation
if the President decided to visit a second residence. No equipment of
the Secret Service or other government agency could be placed at, on,
in or on the grounds of the private residence. A strict legal interpreta-
tion of the bill could lead to the situation where the President is flown
to his second residence, but must descend onto the helicopter pad via a
rope ladder, the Secret Service agents must deplane the same way without
any property (firearms) and all would then enter the private residence
at which there was no government communications equipment.
The other sections of the bill regarding reporting of expendiutres, record-
keeping, and auditing duplicate current procedures. These sections are
unnecessary, but they might be beneficial in preventing future controversy
because of the elimination of doubt over what is the proper procedure.
There is one technical problem in these sections concerning the removal
of protective property after the President's term has expired. The bill
requires removal of property which can reasonably be removed. To avoid
controversy the words "and economically" should be added as a further
definition of what is reasonable.
Suggested Changes in S. 3515
If some limitation on expenditures at private residences is desirable to
prevent future controversy, then we believe the following changes are
essential:
1. The same protection, communication and essential services
provided the President and Vice President when visiting
someone else's residence should be provided on visits to
his own second or additional residences. To accomplish
this, the bill would need to exempt portable protective
property, communication, and other essential services.
2. Some interim provision must be added to provide communica-
tion and other essential property at the designated
residence during the time between passage of this bill and
an appropriation bill to provide funds to the Executive
Office for nonprotective property. One interim method
would be to allow the funds now appropriated for the
Executive Residence also to be expended for property
at private residences. This might solve the communications
problem if the amounts spent were relatively small. In any
5
event, because of the prohibition against expenditures
except from appropriations made directly to the President,
some provision would be required to provide funds for those
purposes pending enactment of appropriations.
3. Nonprotective funds should be authorized for appropriation
in the bill (Section (f) (1) should be amended by adding
before the period the following: "; there is hereby authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary").
4. Section (b) should include "and economically" after the word
reasonably.
The bill does have some merit in that it eliminates the ad hoc provisions
for property at private residences which appear to have arisen over the
years. It also could provide for nonprotective property, which is an area
where there is currently a void and must be addressed at some future time.
Whether all nonprotective property should be furided through one appropria-
tion is difficult to evaluate without knowing the magnitude of such expendi-
tures. Also some expenditures may be better left in the Defense Department
because of national security concerns. It should be stressed that any
appropriation provided for the President would also be the only appropriation
available to the Vice President for similar purposes.
Summary
OMB is not in a position to decide whether there should be a limit on the
number of private residences in which protective property can be used
We do believe that the limitations imposed by this bill are cumbersome
and might result in a decrease in the protection and essential communica-
tions provided the President and Vice President. We believe that present
procedures are adequate to assure Congressional oversight over protective
expenditures and prevent any future controversy in that area. However,
some provision for nonprotective property is probably needed for the
future. If it is decided that a limitation on expenditures is needed
to eliminate future controversy, then we believe that the perfecting
amendments suggested are essential.
(signed) Wally
Walter D. Scott
Associate Director for
Economics and Government
Attachment
cc:
Official file (Treasury Unit)
Mr. W. Scott
Mr. Bray
Return, Mr. Jordan
EGGDiv:JFJordan:ejg 8/2/74
ADDENDUM
A summary of provisions in the bill and current procedures follows:
S. 3515 Subsection (a)
No funds other than provided in subsection (f) can be obligated or
spent for property to protect the private residences of the President
or Vice President unless the obligation or expenditure is made by the
Secret Service, certified by the Director or Deputy Director of the
Secret Service, and approved by the Director or Deputy Director of the
Secret Service.
Current Procedure
Funds are appropriated directly to the Secret Service for protective
property at private residences. Secret Service's procedures require
the Deputy Director of the Secret Service to approve a written request
for all protective expenditures at private residences.
S. 3515 Subsection (b)
Any property acquired for protection of private residences shall be
removed and returned to the Secret Service upon termination of the
President's or Vice President's term of office unless if cannot
reasonably be removed or the Director of the Secret Service deter-
mines it is needed for the continuing protection of the former
President or former Vice President.
Current Procedure
Removal of protective property is required if the property can be
reasonably and economically removed.
S. 3515 Subsection (c)
The President and Vice President are each allowed to designate a
single private residence for which funds for protective property
can be obligated in accordance with (a) above.
Current Procedure
There is no limit on the number of private residences for. which
funds for protective property can be obligated.
2
S. 3515 Subsection (d)
Records of obligations for these expenditures on private residences
will be reflected separately in the accounting system of the Secret
Service and accumulated on a current basis.
Current Procedure
Records of expenditures on private residences are separately kept
within Secret Service's appropriation and are accumulated on an
annual basis.
$. 3515 Subsection (e)
The Director of the Secret Service will report to the Congress no
later than February 1 of each year on the expenditures and the
reasons why they were made. GAO can audit any of these records
on request from the Speaker of the House, President of the Senate,
or the majority or minority heads of either the Senate or House of
Representatives.
Current Procedure
GAO can audit all records of expenditures by the Secret Service.
Secret Service and the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Govern-
ment Subcommittees of the Committee on Appropriations are formulating
the reporting procedures for expenditures at private residences.
S. 3515 Subsection (f)
Any funds used for any property at any private residence of the
President or Vice President (other than that property provided for
in (a) above) shall be appropriated directly to the President or
the Executive Office of the President. Records of the obligations
shall be kept, reported to the Congress and subject to GAO audit.
Current Procedure
The Secret Service provides all protective property. There appears
to be no funds specifically authorized and appropriated for nonpro-
tective property at private residences. The Department of Defense
provides some nonprotective property in the course of providing
communications, emergency relocations, and food service to the
Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Records of protective
expenditures are kept, reported to the Congress, and subject to
GAO audit.
Bill Skidmore
Department of the Treasury
United States Secret Service
Statement of Lilburn E. Boggs
Deputy Director, U. S. Secret Service
Before the Sub-Committee
On Claims and Governmental Relations
House Judiciary Committee
August 22, 1974
R3
3470 R. FORD LIBAR
Mr. Chairman:
I am pleased to appear before you and the other
distinguished members of this Committee to present the
views of the United States Secret Service regarding
H. R. 11499, a bill "to establish procedures and regula-
tions for certain protective services provided by the
United States Secret Service."
First of all, let me state that the concerns that
prompted the introduction of the bill before you today have
already been the subject of a careful review by the House and
Senate Subcommittees on Appropriations that have the respon-
sibility for recommending funds for the operations of the
Secret Service and for overseeing the expenditure of the
amounts appropriated by the Congress. At the direction of
the Subcommittees on Appropriations and with the assistance
of their staffs, we have developed a comprehensive procedure
for the acquisition of space, alterations, and services at
locations involving protective operations.
With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
submit copies of these procedures for the consideration of
the members of the Committee and for insertion in the record.
- 2 -
In reviewing the procedures, you will note that they
are all encompassing, and include operations at both
privately-owned or leased sites and property as well as
Government-owned or leased sites and property. In addition
to meeting the concerns of the House and Senate Subcommittees
on Appropriations, they take into account and implement the
recommendations of the Comptroller General in his report to
the Congress entitled "Protection of the President at Key
Biscayne and San Clemente (With Information on Protection
of Past Presidents)" B-15,5950.
A comparison of the procedures with H. R. 11499 indicates
that many of the provisions in the proposed bill, namely,
sections four, five, and six, have already been included
in our recently promulgated procedures. The sections of the
bill not addressed by our procedures are those that would
hamper Secret Service operations by placing limitations on
the duration of time that protection could be provided with-
out reimbursement and the amount of funds that could be
expended, the restriction of permanent protection to one
location, and, for all practical purposes, the elimination
of the assistance provided to the Secret Service by other
agencies without reimbursement. All of these latter items
are of grave concern to us in that they will either seriously
-3-
impede the level of protection that we can provide, result
in some instances in a greater expenditure of funds than
would otherwise be the case, and cause serious problems
for the Secret Service in predicting budgetary require-
ments. In this regard, the repeal of Section two of the
Act of June 6, 1968 (Public Law 90-331), is of particular
concern to us.
With the indulgence of the Committee, it might be appro-
priate at this point to review the evolution of the assistance
provided by other agencies to the Service in carrying out its
protective responsibilities.
As you know the operations of the Secret Service were
carefully reviewed by the President's Commission on the assa-
ssination of President Kennedy better know as the Warren Comm-
ission. In its report the Commission made substantial
recommendations relative to the level of protection being
afforded the President. In its report the Commission mentioned
among other things that the protection of the President is in
a real sense a Government-wide responsibility which must
necessarily be assumed by various Government Agencies. The
Commission further stated that "Protecting the President is a
-4-
difficult and complex task which requires full use of the
best resources of many parts of our Government. Recognition
that the responsibility must be shared increases the likeli-
hood that it will be met."
Subsequent to the Commission Report the Secret Service
made arrangements with various Government Agencies for their
specialized support as the need arose without any provision
for reimbursement. These informal arrangements were the
basis for the express statutory authority contained in Sec-
tion 2 of Public Law 90-331. In its report on the bill the
Senate Committee on Appropriation stated "the proposed lan-
guage will provide specific authorization of a long-esta-
blished practice of utilizing other Federal departments in
the protective assignments. This assistance may include,
but is not limited to, the provision of personnel and
facilities for intelligence gathering, medical, transpor-
tation, and communications purposes. It eliminates any
doubt of the legal basis for such practice and assures
Treasury direction of the protective functions."
When the conference report on the bill (HR16488) was
called up before the house, the following statements were
made:
-5-
Last week, we gave support to the Presi-
dent's emergency action. A resolution (H.J.
1292) was adopted by both Houses--and signed
by the President on the same day--to pro-
vide authority for the safeguarding of pre-
sidential candidates. We also wrote into
permanent law the right of the Secret Service
to call upon the personnel and facilities
of all Government agencies to assist in the
protection of our Presidents and presidential
candidates. While this had long been the
custom, there had been no statutory authority
for this action.
Our attention has also been focused once
again on the need for other Federal depart-
ments and agencies to assist the Secret Service
in its protective functions. This need was
stressed vigorously by the Warren Commission.
As the number of persons subject to Secret
Service protection and the amount of their
travel has increased over the years, these pro-
tective functions have become a Government wide
responsibility.
-6-
The task of protecting our Presidents in-
volves far more than the availability of
trained agents. It requires the coordination
of all law enforcement agencies for intelli-
gence gathering, the availability of safe
transportation facilities and adequate commu-
nications to reach remote areas, health and
scientific expertise to test food and
drinking water, and many other governmental
resources. We must never permit the safety
of our Presidents--present, past, or future
to be compromised because the resources of
the Government were not made available to
the fullest extent possible to insure their
protection.
It is clear from the legislative history of Public Law
90-331 that the Congress has not intended that the Secret
Service shoulder the entire federal financial burden of
protective activities and that section 2 of Public Law
90-331 was simply intended to put a congressional stamp
of approval on the existing practice of federal agencies
providing assistance to the Secret Service in connection
-7-
with its protective functions without any requirements for
reimbursement.
In this respect we believe the Congress, in its wisdom,
recognized that it would be totally impractical for the
Secret Service to accurately project for budgetary purposes
the variety of specialized needs which could occur in the
total protection environment. Inasmuch as our requests for
support are made to a number of different agencies, the
budgetary impact on any one particular agency is minimized.
In view of the above we strongly urge that section two
of Public Law 90-331 not be repealed as provided by Section
nine of the bill before you and that the current arrangements
for assistance from other agencies whichhave proved so satis-
factory in the past not be disturbed.
In the event this committee and the Congress retains
the provisions of Section 2 of Public Law 90-331, then the
provisions of Section 2 (1) of HR11499 become moot.
With respect to section 2 (2) and 2 (3) of the bill, past
history indicates that in recent years most Presidents have
utilized more than one residence not in Government ownership
or control. Aside from the question of whether or not it is*
-8-
desirable to place such restrictions on the residences of
the President and others who are provided Secret Service
protection, and perhaps financial hardships as well in the
event they choose or are forced to move, the $5,000 limi-
tation in section 2(3) of the bill on the amount that could be
spent on a second residence could conceivably result in
additional overall protection costs. This would almost be
a certainty in view of section three which prohibits the
maintenance of a permanent guard detail to secure a second
residence.
The rationale for this conclusion is that, not with-
standing the above restrictions on the Secret Service, a
President or other protectee may still choose to utilize a
second residence. In this event, the Secret Service would
still be charged with providing the required protection.
Due to the proposed limitation of $5,000 and the prohibition
on permanent guards, little could be done to permanently
secure a second residence. In the absence of the residence
being permanently secured, the Service would be forced to
utilize additional personnel over and above the normal pro-
tective detail to do a complete inspection of the premises
before they could be occupied. Depending on the frequency
-9-
of use, the cost of the additional personnel involved to-
gether with their travel and per diem expenses plus the
extra expense of transporting equipment might well exceed
what it would otherwise cost to secure the premises on a
permanent basis in the absence of the proposed restrictions.
Section seven of the bill is related to Section nine
in that after a period of two weeks any support received
from other agencies would be subject to reimbursement from
funds appropriated to the Secret Service. For the same,
reasons cited earlier with respect to section nine, the Ser-
vice urges that this provision not be adopted.
With respect to section eight, it should be noted that
the Secret Service has been directed by the Subcommittee on
Appropriations to submit quarterly reports of activities per-
formed and the costs incurred to the Appropriations Committee
of the Congress.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, we believe that the procedures
already established at the direction of the Subcommittee
on Appropriations are adequate to meet the concerns of the
Congress with respect to our protective operation. I should
mention too, that due to the relatively short notice of these
hearing time did not permit the clearance of my statement
with the Office of Management and Budget.
-10-
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks and I shall
now be glad to answer any questions you or the other members
of the committee may have.
FORD is LIBRARY
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE
DIRECTOR
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20223
February 22, 1974
620.0
x530.0
MEMORANDUM
To: Deputy Director
Assistant Directors
Assistants to the Director
Legal Counsel
All SAIC's and Division Chiefs
From: Director
Subject: Procedure for the Acquisition of Space, Alterations,
and Services at Locations Involving Protective Operations
Attached are revised procedures covering the acquisition of
space, alterations, and services at locations involving protective
operations. These procedures are effective immediately.
As indicated in the procedures, all approved work will be
monitored jointly by the Office of Administration and the
operational office involved. Any necessary adjustments in the
action requested will be conveyed to the initiating office through
the appropriate Assistant Director for the operational office involved.
It is expected that these procedures will be strictly followed.
Any deviations therefrom must have the express written pproval
of the Deputy Director.
Additional copies of SS Form No. 1911 may be obtained from
the Administrative Operations Division in the usual manner.
HSKmyW
H. S. Knight
LIBRARY GERALD 1080
Attachment
PROCEDURES FOR THE ACQUISITION OF SPACE,
ALTERATIONS, ND SERVICES AT LOCATIONS
INVOLVING PROTECTIVE OPERATIONS
1. Purpose
The purpose of these procedures is to establish a uniform
method in the Secret Service for the acquisition of space,
alterations, and other services at locations involving pro-
tective operations.
2. Scope
These procedures are applicable to all Secret Service Offices,
Divisions, Details, or other groups who have been assigned the
duty to provide protection to persons, places, or things.
Included in this coverage are operations at both Government-owned
and Government-leased sites and property, as well as privately-owned
leased sites and property.
3. General Coverage
These procedures cover all work performed or to be performed,
together with any related expenditures for all space, alterations,
services, equipment. furniture, and all other items of tangible
property which are furnished, installed, constructed, repaired,
or altered by or at the request of the United States Secret Service,
including those items that are physically attached or made a
permanent part of any structure, property, site, or other hysical
entity.
4. Survey or Requirements
The Secret Se vice will conduct its usual survey to letermine
what measures are necessary to provide the desired.level of
protection.
- 2 -
5. Request for Authorization and Performance
Requests for work or expenditures described in paragraph 3
above will be documented as indicated on SS Form No. 1911,
including all pertinent justifications and specifications. The
cost estimate will include information obtained from the
General Services Administration, where appropriate. When
required, use plain paper for continuation sheets. Requests
will be deemed to include all necessary future replacements,
maintenance, and repairs relating to the work or other items
specifically requested.
6. Proposed Recovery of Equipment and/or Restoration Required
Items of equipment that the Secret Service proposes to recover
at the termination of the mission will be clearly spelled out on
SS Form No. 1911, together with any restorations that appear to
be required. It should be understood that in some instances, it
may not be practical or economically feasible at some future date
to recover items and make restorations as contemplated at the
time the work was originally performed.
7. Concurrence of Protectee or His Designee when Either
Privately-owned or Leased Property is Involved
Prior to- the commencement of any work on privately-owned or
privately-leased property, the concurrence for such work that
is required to be performed will be obtained by the requesting
office from the protectee or his designated representative. When
representatives are designated to act for protectees, such authori-
zations shall be obtained in writing from the particular protectee
involved. Such concurrence shall not be considered as agreement
by the protectee to the proposed recovery or restoration proposed
in the request.
!
BERALD
LIDERAL
3
8. Processing of SS Form No. 1911. "Request for Space,
Alterations, Equipment. and Services at Locations
Involving Protective Operations
SS Form No. 1911 will be initiated by the appropriate
Special Agent in Charge or Assistant Director involved. Cost
estimates will be determined by the requesting office in con-
junction with the Administrative Operations Division in the
Office of Administration. Any cost information required from
the General Services Administration will be obtained by the
Administrative Operations Division, which will also serve as the
contacting office with that agency. After the requisite approvals
and certifications as to the availability of funds has been obtained,
the Administrative Operations Division will issue the appropriate
job orders, purchase orders, or contracts, as the case may be.
The performance of any work required will be monitored jointly
by the Administrative Operations Division and the appropriate
Special Agent in Charge or Assistant Director involved.
9. Emergency Procedures
When an emergency arises and time does not permit the
processing of SS Form No. 1911 in the usual manner, all
requests, concurrences, and approvals required by these pro-
cedures may be processed orally. Any such emergency oral
actions shall be confirmed by the submission of SS Form No. 1911
with a check mark in the "Confirmation" block as soon as
possible thereafter, preferably within 24 hours.
10. Accounting and Reporting
Costs will be accumulated for each location indicating whether
the property is Government-owned or leased or privatel buyned
or leased. Any reports or notices required by law partaining
STATES
- 4 -
to the activities covered by these procedures will have the
concurrence of the agencies involved, i.e., Secret Service and
the General Services Administration.
Effective July 1, 1974, all costs incurred under these procedures
will be funded from the appropriation of the United States Secret
Service. Appropriate reports of the activities performed and
the costs incurred under these procedures will be made to the
Appropriations Committees of the Congress.
11. Effective Date
The requirements spelled out in these procedures are effective
immediately. The Director's memorandum of October 15, 1973,
subject "Space for Protectees, " File No. 530.0 (x 610.0) is
hereby rescinded.
HSKungh5
H. S. Knight
REQUEST FOR SPACE, ALTERATIONS, EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES
AT LOCATIONS INVOLVING PROTECTIVE OPERATIONS
PAGE NO.
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
OF
PAGES
NAME OF PROTECTEE
FINANCIAL CODE (FMD USE ONLY)
DATE OF REQUEST
NAME OF SITE LOCATION
ORIGINAL REQUEST
FILE NO.
620.0
GOV'T OWNED
PRIVATELY OWNED
CONFIRMATION OF
GOV'T LEASED
PRIVATELY LEASED
GENERAL PROJECT TITLE
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL
NAME OF REQUESTOR
OFFICE
CONTACT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
TELEPHONE NO.
REQUIRED COMPLETION DATE
B. SUMMARY JUSTIFICATION AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROJECT (CONTINUE ON PLAIN BOND PAPER)
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
C. PROPOSED RECOVERY OF EQUIPMENT AND/OR RESTORATION REQUIRED
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
D. CONCURRENCE OF PROTECTEE OR DESIGNEE
(PRIVATELY OWNED/LEASED PROPERTY ONLY)
SIGNATURE
DATE
E. APPROVALS
OPERATIONAL
:
STATE
SAIC (SIGNATURE)
DATE
APPROPRIATE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (SIGNATUR
DATE
ADMINISTRATIVE
F. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS CERTIFICATION
EREIT
AD-ADMINISTRATION (SIGNATURE)
DATE
(FMD USE ONLY)
AGENCY
DEPUTY DIRECTOR (SIGNATURE)
DATE
UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE
SSF 1911 (02-74)
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 30, 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR:
BILL TIMMONS
FROM:
PHIL BUCHEN
SUBJECT:
Legislation dealing with the
President's residence
So far as I am concerned, the comments in the OMB
memorandum for Jerry Jones on S. 3515 dated August 5,
1974 (copy attached) represent an appropriate critique of
such bill and could be the basis of followup for your letter
of July 1, 1974, to Senator Bill Brock.
Attachments
cc: Jerry Jones
Lynn May
GERALB FORD LIBRARY
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
AUG 5 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR JERRY JONES
Subject: Comments on S. 3515
This is in reply to your request to the Director of July 8, 1974, for
comments and recommendations on S. 3515, a bill introduced by Senator
Brock relating to procurement of property for the protection of the
President and Vice President at private residences.
The Lill (1) prohibits all expenditures (except those provided in (3)
below) for protective property at the private residences of the President
and Vice President unless the expenditure is approved and made by the
Secret Service; (2) further limits these expenditures to a single private
residence to be designated by the President and another designated by the
Vice President; (3) prohibits all other expenditures for property at pri-
vate residences except such funds as may be appropriated to the President
or the Executive Office of the President (according to Senator Brock's
comments in the Congressional Record, this section is intended to cover
only non-protective expenses but from a strict legal interpretation the
section could also cover protective expenses at additional private
residences); and (4) mandates certain procedures for recordkeeping,
reporting, auditing, and authorization for public monies spent on private
residences by the Secret Service and by the President or the Executive
Office. A more detailed summary of the bill and a comparison with current
procedures is included in the addendum.
The main objective of the bill is to prevent future controversy over monies
spent on private residences, such as the controversy which occurred in 1973
when Congressional Committees examined this issued and the General Accounting
Office (GAO) issued a report on December 18, 1973, on Protection of the
President at Key Biscayne and San Clemente. The GAO report and many
Congressmen have criticized some acquisitions of property for private
residences and the methods to control such expenditures. Many of the crit-
icisms over methods to control such expenditures have been met and several
of the provisions in this bill have thus been overtaken by recent changes
in statute and procedures which improve the control within the Executive
Branch and by the Congress over such expenditures.
-
FORD
GERATO
LIBRARY
2
Past Procedures
Before the controversy arose over expenditures at private residences and
prior to July 1, 1974, the General Services Administration (GSA) received
appropriations from the Congress for "Operating Expenses" of the Public
Buildings Service which paid for the rental, operation, protection and
utilization of Government-owned and leased buildings. This appropriation
also provided for = fencing, lighting, guard booths, and other facilities
on private or other property not in Government ownership or control as
may be appropriate to enable the United States Secret Service to perform
its protective functions GSA thus provided all funds for protective
property at private residences of the President and Vice President.
GSA also made some expenditures, which GAO, in its report, considered to
be for nonprotective property. These included the installation of flagpoles
and the renovation of the den at San Clemente into an office. GSA defended
these expenditures as = a logical extension of GSA's authority to provide
administrative support to the Executive Office of the President... = GAO
criticized these nonprotective expenditures as well as certain protective
expenditures. After the controversy had arisen, the Congress, in the
language of the FY 1974 appropriations act (P.L. 93-143, October 30, 1973),
directed that quarterly reports of expenditures on private residences be
submitted by GSA to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and the
Senate.
Current Procedures
On July 1, 1974, certain provisions of the Public Building Amendments of 1972
(P.L. 92-313, June 16, 1972) became effective which restricted GSA's ability
to fund other Executive branch agencies building improvements or furnishings.
These provisions provided that executive agenies would obtain individual
appropriations for rent and related costs of space instead of GSA obtaining
all funds in one appropriation. This Act, and the FY 1975 appropriations bill,
which under the continuing resolution on appropriations is controlling,
eliminated GSA's authority and funds to provide property at private
residences unless reimbursed from the funds of, and directed by, another
Federal agency. Funds are now appropriated directly to the Secret Service
for protection at private residences to provide for = fencing, lighting,
guard booths and other facilities on private or other property not in
Government ownership or control as may be necessary to perform protective
functions
"
Therefore the Secret Service has authorization and appropriations for
protective property at the private residences of the President and Vice
President. This new funding procedure fixes accountability and Congressional
oversight for such expenditures. The lack of accountability and Congressional
oversight was one of GAO's criticisms in its report.
FOND
LIBRARY
3
Other GAO critisims have also been overcome through the adoption of new
procedures. The Secret Service now requires written requests for all
expenditures for property at private residences and these requests must
be approved in writing by the Deputy Director of the Secret Service.
The method and type of report on such expenditures, which will be
required by the Congress, is being formulated by the Secret Service
and its Appropriations Subcommittee. The funds for protection at
private residences are kept separately within the Secret Service
appropriation and are subject to GAO audit.
The GAO critisms over nonprotective funds have also been alleviated--at
least for the present. GSA's funds for such purposes have been eliminated,
and there are no other funds specifically authorized for nonprotective
purposes. Some support is provided by the Department of Defense with
respect to the President's position as Commander in Chief.
Theoretically, nonprotective funds for private residences could be
appropriated to a new appropriations account within the Executive Office
of the President. However, there is no authorization for such appropria-
tion within the Executive Office and thus no funds are available. There-
fore, there is presently a void concerning nonprotective funds at private
residences which will probably need to be remedied through authorization
for appropriations to a new account within the Executive Office.
There may also be other appropriation accounts which supply property to
private residences. For example, the Department of Defense supplies
some property in the course of providing communications, emergency
relocation, and food service at the private residences of the President.
General Lawson, Chief Military Aide to the President is familiar with the
nature and extent of Defense property furnished at private residences.
Problems Posed by this Bill
Under the bill, protective property would be provided by the Secret
Service at only one designated private residence for the President and
another for the Vice President. No other agency could provide any
property whatsoever except if funds were appropriated to the President
or the Executive Office for private residences. The President and/or
the Executive Office would need an authorization and an appropriation
before funds could be expended for property at private residences.
The bill is unacceptable in its current form because of inadequate pro-
vision for nonprotective expenditures at the designated residences and
for protection and communications at additional private residences.
The provision for nonprotective expenditures at the designated residences
is inadequate because all other agencies, including the Department of
Defense, would be prohibited from supplying any property for communica-
tions, emergency relocation, or food service as soon as the
LIBRARY
4
signed into law. There is no interim provision for the Executive Office
or the President to provide this property until a separate authorization
and appropriation are enacted. Therefore, the situation could develop
where the President would be protected at the designated private residence
but have inadequate communications to lead the country if a crisis developed.
The limitation of S. 3515 could inadvertently create an alarming situation
if the President decided to visit a second residence. No equipment of
the Secret Service or other government agency could be placed at, on,
in or on the grounds of the private residence. A strict legal interpreta-
tion of the bill could lead to the situation where the President is flown
to his second residence, but must descend onto the helicopter pad via a
rope ladder, the Secret Service agents must deplane the same way without
any property (firearms) and all would then enter the private residence
at which there was no government communications equipment.
The other sections of the bill regarding reporting of expendiutres, record-
keeping, and auditing duplicate current procedures. These sections are
unnecessary, but they might be beneficial in preventing future controversy
because of the elimination of doubt over what is the proper procedure.
There is one technical problem in these sections concerning the removal
of protective property after the President's term has expired. The bill
requires removal of property which can reasonably be removed. To avoid
controversy the words "and economically" should be added as a further
definition of what is reasonable.
Suggested Changes in S. 3515
If some limitation on expenditures at private residences is desirable to
prevent future controversy, then we believe the following changes are
essential:
1. The same protection, communication and essential services
provided the President and Vice President when visiting
someone else's residence should be provided on visits to
his own second or additional residences. To accomplish
this, the bill would need to exempt portable protective
property, communication, and other essential services.
2. Some interim provision must be added to provide communica-
tion and other essential property at the designated
residence during the time between passage of this bill and
an appropriation bill to provide funds to the Executive
Office for nonprotective property. One interim method
would be to allow the funds now appropriated for the
Executive Residence also to be expended for property
at private residences. This might solve the communications
problem if the amounts spent were relatively small. In any
FORD
GERALD
LIBRARY
5
event, because of the prohibition against expenditures
except from appropriations made directly to the President,
some provision would be required to provide funds for those
purposes pending enactment of appropriations.
3. Nonprotective funds should be authorized for appropriation
in the bill (Section (f) (1) should be amended by adding
before the period the following: "; there is hereby authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary").
4. Section (b) should include "and economically" after the word
reasonably.
The bill does have some merit in that it eliminates the ad hoc provisions
for property at private residences which appear to have arisen over the
years It also could provide for nonprotective property, which is an area
where there is currently a void and must be addressed at some future time.
Whether all nonprotective property should be funded through one appropria-
tion is difficult to evaluate without knowing the magnitude of such expendi-
tures. Also some expenditures may be better left in the Defense Department
because of national security concerns. It should be stressed that any
appropriation provided for the President would also be the only appropriation
available to the Vice President for similar purposes.
Summary
OMB is not in a position to decide whether there should be a limit on the
number of private residences in which protective property can be used.
We do believe that the limitations imposed by this bill are cumbersome
and might result in a decrease in the protection and essential communica-
tions provided the President and Vice President. We believe that present
procedures are adequate to assure Congressional oversight over protective
expenditures and prevent any future controversy in that area. However,
some provision for nonprotective property is probably needed for the
future. If it is decided that a limitation on expenditures is needed
to eliminate future controversy, then we believe that the perfecting
amendments suggested are essential.
Wally Scott
Associate Director for
Economics and Government
Attachment
GERALD
ADDENDUM
A summary of provisions in the bill and current procedures follows:
S. 3515 Subsection (a)
No funds other than provided in subsection (f) can be obligated or
spent for property to protect the private residences of the President
or Vice President unless the obligation or expenditure is made by the
Secret Service, certified by the Director or Deputy Director of the
Secret Service, and approved by the Director or Deputy Director of the
Secret Service.
Current Procedure
Funds are appropriated directly to the Secret Service for protective
property at private residences. Secret Service's procedures require
the Deputy Director of the Secret Service to approve a written request
for all protective expenditures at private residences.
S. 3515 Subsection (b)
Any property acquired for protection of private residences shall be
removed and returned to the Secret Service upon termination of the
President's or Vice President's term of office unless if cannot
reasonably be removed or the Director of the Secret Service deter-
mines it is needed for the continuing protection of the former
President or former Vice President.
Current Procedure
Removal of protective property is required if the property can be
reasonably and economically removed.
S. 3515 Subsection (c)
The President and Vice President are each allowed to designate a
single private residence for which funds for protective property
can be obligated in accordance with (a) above.
Current Procedure
There is no limit on the number of private residences for which
funds for protective property can be obligated.
i
FORM
LIBRANA
2
S. 3515 Subsection (d)
Records of obligations for these expenditures on private residences
will be reflected separately in the accounting system of the Secret
Service and accumulated on a current basis.
Current Procedure
Records of expenditures on private residences are separately kept
within Secret Service's appropriation and are accumulated on an
annual basis.
S. 3515 Subsection (e)
The Director of the Secret Service will report to the Congress no
later than February 1 of each year on the expenditures and the
reasons why they were made. GAO can audit any of these records
on request from the Speaker of the House, President of the Senate,
or the majority or minority heads of either the Senate or House of
Representatives.
Current Procedure
GAO can audit all records of expenditures by the Secret Service.
Secret Service and the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Govern-
ment Subcommittees of the Committee on Appropriations are formulating
the reporting procedures for expenditures at private residences.
S. 3515 Subsection (f)
Any funds used for any property at any private residence of the
President or Vice President (other than that property provided for
in (a) above) shall be appropriated directly to the President or
the Executive Office of the President. Records of the obligations
shall be kept, reported to the Congress and subject to GAO audit.
Current Procedure
The Secret Service provides all protective property. There appears
to be no funds specifically authorized and appropriated for nonpro-
tective property at private residences. The Department of Defense
provides some nonprotective property in the course of providing
communications, emergency relocations, and food service to the
Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Records of protective
expenditures are kept, reported to the Congress, and subject to
GAO audit.
/
BERALD
August 30, 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR:
BILL TIMMONS
FROM:
PHIL BUCHEN
SUBJECT:
Legislation dealing with the
President's residence
So far as I am concerned, the comments in the OMB
memorandum for Jerry Jones on 8. 3515 dated August 5,
1974 (copy attached) represent an appropriate critique of
such bill and could be the basis of followup for your letter
of July 16 1974, to Senator Bill Brock.
Attachments
Lyan May
DERALO 1. FORD LIBRADA
August 30, 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR:
BILL TIMMONS
FROM:
PHIL BUCHEN
SUBJECT:
Legislation dealing with the
President's residence
Se far as x am concerned, the comments in the OMB
memorandum for Jerry Jenes on B. 3515 dated August 5.
1974 (copy attached) represent an appropriate critique of
such bill and could be the basis of followup for your letter
of July 4 1974, to Senater Bill Brock.
Attachments
dei PWBuchen:ed Jerry Johns
Lyan May
FORDS is LIBRARY QERALD
August 30, 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR:
BILL TIMMONS
FROM:
PHIL BUCHEN
SUBJECT:
Legislation dealing with the
President's residence
So for as I am conserned, the comments in the OMB
memorandum for Jerry Jenes on S. 3515 dated August 5,
1974 (copy attached) represent an appropriate critique of
such bill and could be the basis of followup for your letter
of July 4 1974, to Senster Bill Brock.
Attachments
Lynn May
FORD is LIBRARY
August 30, 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR:
BILL TIMMONS
FROM:
PHIL BUCHEN
SUBJECT:
Legislation dealing with the
President's residence
So for as 1 am conserned, the comments in the OMB
memorandum for Jerry Jenes on s. 3515 dated August 5,
1974 (copy attached) represent as appropriate eritique of
such bill and could be the basis of followup for your letter
of July 4 1974, to Senator Bill Brock.
Attachments
Lynn May
FORDO is LIBRARY
August 30, 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR:
BILL TIMMONS
FROM:
PHIL BUCHEN
SUBJECT:
Legislation dealing with the
President's residence
So for as 1 am conserned, the comments in the OMB
memorandum for Jerry James on s. 3515 dated August 5,
1974 (copy attached) represent as appropriate critique of
such bill and could be the basis of followup for your letter
of July 4 1974, to Senater Dill Brock.
Attachments
Lynn May
GERALD 4. LIBRARY FORD
August 30, 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR:
BILL TIMMONS
FROM:
PHIL BUCHEN
SUBJECT:
Legislation dealing with the
President's residence
So far as I am concerned, the comments in the OMB
memorandum for Jerry Jones on S. 3515 dated August s,
1974 (copy attached) represent as appropriate critique of
such bill and could be the basis of followup for your letter
of July 1, 1974, to Senater Bill Brock.
Attachments
Lynn May
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
August 30, 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR:
BILL TIMMONS
FROM:
PHIL BUCHEN
SUBJECT:
Legislation dealing with the
President's residence
So for as I am conserned, the comments in the OMB
memorandum for Jerry Jones on 8. 3515 dated August s,
1974 (ongy attached) represent as appropriate critique of
such bill and could be the back of follows for your letter
of July L 1974, to Senster Bill Brock.
Attachments
PWBushen:ed
BERALD 4. off
August 30, 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR:
BILL TIMMONS
FROM:
PHIL BUCHEN
SUBJECT:
Legislation dealing with the
President's residence
So for as I am conserned, the comments in the OMB
memorandem for Jerry James on s. 3515 dated August 5,
1974 (copy attached) represent as appropriate eritique of
such bill and could be the basis of followsp for your letter
of July 4 1974, to Senater Bill Breck.
Attachments
Lynn May
FORD : LIBRARY GERALD
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
see also
UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE
President
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20223
Personal-
OFFICE
OF
THE DIRECTOR
620.11
November 14, 1974
(ale res dence)
Nil
MEMORANDUM FOR : Philip Buchen
Counsel to the President
FROM
: David H. Martin
DHM
Legal Counsel
SUBJECT
: Rental of the President's House in Alexandria
Bill Casselman called me this morning regarding the above
captioned subject and requested a clarification of the Secret Service
position regarding the future use of the command post located there.
Apparently, the President has indicated that he may utilize this house
as his residence in the future. Based on that information, the Secret
Service feels that the command post should not be physically altered into
a garage, but should remain as is for future utilization. As I under-
stand it, the toilet facility, the walls and the rug would remain; the
stove and refrigerator would be reclaimed by the General Services
Administration.
Another minor matter that has arisen and which I discussed
with Bill, is painting the walls and cleaning the rugs in the command
post as requested by the realtor handling the leasing of the residence.
We do not feel that these matters fall within the authority or res-
ponsibility of the Secret Service. Further, in view of recent Congressional
interest in Secret Service expenditures of this nature and also the
requirement of Congressional appropriation committees for the Secret
Service to account for protective expenditures on a quarterly basis, we
feel that the Secret Service should not assume these expenses.
If I can be of further assistance, please call me at 964-8208,
or Code 184, extension 8208.
FORD is LIBRARY 9EPALD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Date: December 16, 1974
TO:
PHILIP BUCHEN
FROM: ANNE ARMSTRONG
For Your Information
For Appropriate Handling
Remarks:
I need your comments by noon Wednesday.
If I don't hear from you I'll assume
you concur as stated. Concur-P.W.B.
BERRAD FORD LIBRARY
DRAFT
12-16-74
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
ANNE ARMSTRONG
SUBJECT:
Bicentennial and Longer Range Potential of Excess Federal
Land in the Vicinity of Beltsville, Maryland
This memorandum relates to my duties in both the Federal Property Council
and Bicentennial areas.
Some 3,600 acres of land at the Agricultural Research Center in Beltsville,
Maryland, have been reported to the General Services Administration as
excess to the needs of the Department of Agriculture.
The land is worth about $13 million but has been essentially unused since
1971. It constitutes one of the few remaining undeveloped large-acreage
areas in the Baltimore-National Capital area, a region which has a
shortage of land set aside for recreation and conservation purposes.
There are numerous groups and individuals who are pressing the Federal
government to decide what is to be done with this valuable, too-long unused
land. Some have requested that portions or all of it be made available to
the State of Maryland, Prince George's County, or certain educational
institutions. Others, including Senators Mathias and Beall and Congressman
Hogan, favor Federal retention of the property as an entity, with it being
used for recreation, conservation, and wildlife preservation activities.
The National Capital Bicentennial celebration also has a bearing upon the
utilization of the Beltsville property. First, the Department of the
Interior hopes to obtain 900 of the 3,600 excess acres for inc hision FOR
In
CERALD.
LIBRARY
- 2 -
its Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. The Department has funds earmarked
for a visitor's center which can be ready in 1976 provided work can
commence soon.
Second, the Beltsville property has the potential for alleviating the
projected Bicentennial shortages in both campsites and fringe parking
spaces. More than 50% of the visitors to the National Capital Bicentennial
celebration are expected to arrive through the Baltimore-Washington highway
corridor, and the Beltsville property is located near the Baltimore-
Washington Parkway. The land has the potential to provide 600 mobile
camper sites, which would reduce the estimated 5,700 campsite deficit by
more than 10%. Similarly, it could accommodate parking for 1,000 cars and
be useful in meeting some of the fringe parking needs on those special
days when abnormally large visitor influxes overload the normal fringe
parking lots.
For those reasons, and because current parking plans could go awry, the
White House Interagency Bicentennial Task Force wants to keep open the
option of making camping and parking facilities available on the Beltsville
property.
Here are three options for your consideration:
-- Option 1: The President announces that the excess land at Beltsville
will be committed to long-range recreation, conservation, wildlife
preservation and related scientific and educational purposes; that the
Patuxent Wildlife Research Center will receive 900 of the 3,600 excess
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
- 3 -
acres; that the Department of the Interior will undertake a study to
recommend the long-term management of the excess property, what
investments will be required, and who (Federal, state, or local agency
or combination thereof) should be assigned that responsibility; and
that, in the interim, the property will be available as a potential
supplement to the Bicentennial celebration camping and fringe parking
plans.
-- Option 2: The same as Option 1 except that a specific camping project
would be launched and would be Federally-sponsored, and a supplemental
$1.5 million FY 75 appropriation would be sought to construct
Bicentennial facilities.
-- Option 3: Transfer 900 of the 3,600 excess acres to the Department
of the Interior for inclusion in the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center;
forego all other Bicentennial potential land, without additional
analysis, abandon further Federal consideration of integrated long-
range planning for the remaining 2,700 excess acres; and immediately
make the property or portions thereof available to Federal agencies,
the State of Maryland, or local jurisdictions for a variety of potential
uses.
In considering these three options and others, two criteria have been
uppermost in my thinking. First, there is a real need to preserve the
recreation and conservation potential of the Beltsville property.
Second
the value of the land is due to its location and size, and every Deffort
- 4 -
should be made to avoid a piece-meal disposition of the property. These
two principles have been the common threads running through most of the
proposals we have considered, and have been explicitly supported by the
two Maryland Senators and the Congressman.
Option 3 does not meet these two criteria, while Options 1 and 2 do.
However, Option 2 necessitates an immediate Federal outlay of about $1.5
million, and neither reprogramming the Department of Interior budget nor
seeking an FY 1975 supplemental appropriation seem advisable at this time.
Therefore, as Chairman of the Federal Property Council and as Chairman of
the White House Interagency Bicentennial Task Force, I recommend that you
select Option 1. Rog Morton and the members of the Federal Property Council
(Roy Ash, Philip Buchen, Dean Burch, Alan Greenspan, Bill Timmons, and
Russ Peterson) concur in this recommendation.
If you agree, there is attached for your signature at Tab A a memorandum
that will notify Secretary Morton of your decision and direct him to
implement it.
Agree; implement Option 1.
Disagree; prefer Option 2.
Disagree, prefer Option 3.
Comments:
BERALD FORD LIBRARY