^ 0 ? //

^4*5

f £>&.<$

GUVEKNMEN

Storage

PROTECTIVE SERVICES PROVIDED

U.S. SECRET SERVICE

: LI M E N T S

BY (i

J N l 1 ,975

T H E L I B R A R Y 

K A N S A S S T A T E U N IV E R S IT Y H E A R I N G

BEFO RE T H E

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ADM INISTRATIVE LAW AND 

GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

__ '»

3

_ _ _ _ rA

rA

~ <C

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON TH E JUD ICIAR Y

HOUSE OF REPR ESENTATIVES

NINE TY -FO UR TH CONGRESS

FIR ST SESSION

ON

H. R. 1244

TO ES TA BL ISH PROC ED UR ES AND REGU LATIO NS FO R 

CE RT AIN PR OT EC TIVE SE RV ICES PR OV ID ED BY TH E U.S. 

SE CR ET SERV ICE

FEBRUARY’ 6, 1975

Serial No. 5

Pr in ted for t he use of th e C om mittee on the J ud ic ia ry

47-(.c.8

U.S. GO VE RN ME NT PR IN TI NG OF FICE 

WAS HING TO N : 1975
A - X 4

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

PE TE R W. RODIN O, Jr., New Jersey, Chairman.

JA CK B RO OK S, Texas

RO BE RT W. KA STEN ME IER, Wisconsin 

DON EDW ARD S, California 

WILLIAM L. HU NG ATE, Missouri 

JOHN CO NY ER S, Jr., Michigan 

JOSHU A EI LB ER G, Pennsylvania 

WA LTER FLOW ERS, Alabama 

JAMES R. MANN, South Carolina 

PA UL S. S AR BA NE S, Maryland 

JOHN F. SE IB ER LI NG , Ohio 

GE OR GE E. DA NIELSON, California 

RO BE RT F. D R1NA N, Massachusetts 

BA RBA RA JO RD AN, Texas 

RAY TH OR NT ON , Arkansas 

EL IZAB ET H HOLTZ MAN , New York 

EDW ARD ME ZVINSKY, Iowa 

HERMAN BA DI LL O, New York 

ROMANO L. MAZZOLI, Kentucky 

EDW ARD W. PA TT ISO N, New York 

CH RIST OP HE R J. DO DD, Connecticut 

WILLIA M J. H UGHES, New Jersey 

MA RT IN A. RUSSO, Illinois

EDWA RD H UTCH INS ON , Michigan 

RO BE RT McCLOR Y, Illinois 

TOM RA ILSB AC K, Illinois

CH AR LE S E. WIGGLN8, California 

HAMILTON FISH, Jr., New York 

M. C AL DW EL L BU TL ER , Virginia 

WILLIA M S. COH EN, Maine 

CA RL OS J. MOOR HEA D, California 

JOHN M. ASHB RO OK , Ohio 

H ENRY J. HYD E, Illinois 

THOMAS N. KIND NE SS, Ohio

Eari, C. Dudley, Jr., General Counsel

Garner J. C line, Staff Director

Herbert F uchs, Cou nsel

William P. Shattuck, Cou nsel

Alan A. Parker, Cou nsel

James F. Falco, Counsel

Maurice A. Barboza, Cou nsel

T homas W. Hutchison, Coun sel

A rthur P. Endres, Jr., Cou nsel

Daniel L. Cohen, Cou nsel

F ranklin G. P olk, Cou nsel

T homas E. Mooney, Cou nsel

Michael W. Blommer, Counsel

Alexander B. Cook, Cou nsel

Constantine J. Gek as, Counsel

Alan F. Coff ey, Jr., Cou nsel

K enneth N. K lee, Cou nsel

S u b c o m m it tee on Ad m in is t r a t iv e L aw an d G o v e r n m en ta l R ela tio n s

WA LT ER FLO WE RS, Alabama, Chairm an

GE OR GE E. DA NIELSON, California CA RL OS J. M OOR HEAD, California

BAR BA RA JO RD AN, Texas HAM ILTO N FISH, Jr., New York

ROMANO L. MAZZOLI, Kentucky

EDWA RD W. PAT TIS ON , New York

William P. Shattuck, Counsel

Alan F. Coffey, Jr , Associate Cou nsel

(II)
C O N T E N T S

Tex t of II.R . 1244__________________________

Sta tem ent by Hon. Jack Brooks, a Rep resentativ e in Congress from the 

Sta te of Texas_________________

Witnesses—

Loggs, Lilburn E., Deput y Director, U.S. Secret Service_________

Crawford, Irvine M., Associate Director, General Governm ent

Division, General Accounting Office__________________________

Hill, Clinton J., Assistant Director, Protective Forces, U.S. Secret 

Service__________________________

Keller, Rob ert F., Deputy Comptroller General, General Accounting 

Office_______________________

Long, Francis A., Assistant Director, Adm inistration, U.S. Secret 

Service___________________________

McBrien, Rob ert, Special Assistant for Special Legislation and

Projects, U.S. Secret Service___________________

Additional materia l—

Knight, II. S., Departm ent of the Treasury, U.S. Secret Service,

memo randum, Feb rua ry 22, 1974______________________

1 rocedures for the Acquisition of Space, Alterations, and Services 

at Locations Invo lving Protective Operations” _________________

P ag e

4

1

16

11

16

11

16

16

17

17

(in)

PROTECTIVE SERVICES PROVIDED BY 

U.S. SECRET SERVICE

TH UR SD AY, FE BRU A RY 6, 197 5

H ouse of Representatives,

Subcommittee on Administrative L aw

and Governmental Relations

of th e Committee on ti ie J udiciary,

Washington, D.G.

The subcommittee met, purs uant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in room 

2237 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Walter Flowers [chairm an 

of the subcommittee] presiding.

Pres ent: Representatives Flowers, Danielson, Jordan , Mazzoli, 

Pattison, and Moorhead.

Also pre sent: William P. Shattuck, counsel, and Alan F. Coffey, Jr., 

associate counsel.

Mr. Flowers. We can begin now, and will call as the first witness 

Mr. Keller, of the General Accounting Office, and your assistants may 

also take places at the witness table, Mr. Keller.

I have a statement submitted by our colleague, Jack Brooks, who 

is th e principal sponsor of the bill, H.R. 1244, which I will, w ithout 

objection, have placed in the record at this point along with a copy 

of the bill.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Jac k Brooks follows:]

Statement of Hon. J ack Brooks, a Representative in Congress From th e

State of Texas

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to present this statement in 

support of H.R. 1244, a bill to establish procedures and regulations for certain 

protective services provided by the United States Secret Service.

An investigation during the 93d Congress by the Government Activities Subcommittee of the Government Operations Committee revealed tha t more than 

$17 million had been spent on and in support of private properties owned and 

utilized by former President Nixon at San Clemente, Calif.; Key Biscayne, 

Fla .; and a t the home of a friend in the Bahama Islands. These funds were spent 

for improvements, maintenance, administrative support, communications fa cilities, and personnel. Not all of the funds were spent for improvements on the 

privately-owned presidential properties, but none of the funds would have 

been spent but for the ownership and maintenance of these several properties 

by the former President.

The Government Activities Subcommittee, of which I was Chairman, was 

alarmed not only at the magnitude of these expenditures, but also at the type of 

expenditure we found to be occurring. It was discovered tha t the American ta xpayer had paid $66,000 for a fence around the Key Biscayne compound designed 

as a replica of the fence around the White House.

The Government paid $2,000 fo r a shuffleboard at Key Biscayne. We paid for 

heating systems in private homes at Key Biscayne and at San Clemente—the 

latter one costing over $13,500.

(1)
2

Th e American p ub lic p aid fo r th e pro per ty s ur ve ys u sed b y Mr . Nix on ’s at to rn ey 

duri ng th e se ttle m en t proc ee ding s when he pu rc ha se d th e pro per ty in Cal ifor ni a. 

Tho se pr op er ty su rv ey s, co st in g ov er $5.(XM), were or de re d by, de liv er ed to, an d 

bi lle d to Mr. Nixon ’s p ri vate at to rn ey , H erb ert K alm ba ch , long be fo re eit her th e 

Sec re t Se rvice or tli e Gen er al Se rvices A dm in is tr at io n ac tive ly be ga n pl an ni ng 

se cu ri ty a t th a t loca tio n.

Tlie Amer ican peo ple also pai d fo r a ne w se w er lin e, ov er $5,000 w or th of 

la nte rn s, fu rn it u re fo r th e den, an d, a t one tim e, were pa yi ng mor e th an $40,000 

a ye ar fo r la nd sc ap e m ai nte na nce on t he N ixon p ro per ty a t Sa n Cl em ente. Gov ernm en t pe rson ne l per m an en tly as sign ed to th es e pri vate pro per ty lo ca tion s in Sa n 

Cl em en te an d Ke y Bisca yn e were co stin g ov er $1.0 mill ion per y ea r.

A fter an ex tens iv e an d ve ry diffi cu lt in ve st ig at io n, my Su bc om m itt ee re ve al ed 

nu m er ou s fl agra nt ab us es of th e pu blic tr u st by hi gh lev el go ve rn m en t officials, 

in cl ud in g som e in th e W hi te Ho use. We disc ov ered th a t m an ag eri al re sp on sibi li ty fo r th e ex pe ndi tu re of th es e m ill ions of doll ar s w as v ir tu all y no ne xi sten t. 

Mr . Nixon ’s pe rs on al att orn ey an d arc hit ect w er e be ing perm itte d to ord er ite ms 

co stin g th ou sa nd s of do llar s and se nd th e bi lls to th e GSA . Peo ple in th e W hi te 

Hou se w er e dir ec ting t he GSA to p er fo rm or pa y fo r ro utine h om e-ow ne r se rv ice s 

and then ge ne ra te aft er- th e-f act re ques ts fr om th e Se cr et Se rv ice in an effort 

to cover up th e tr ue so ur ce of th e expen dit ure s of pu blic fu nd s.

Not al l of th e fa u lt lie s w ith th e Gov er nm en t ag en cies. The ve ry fa ct th a t a 

P re si den t of th e U ni ted S ta te s chose to m ain ta in th re e p ri vate ho me s in ad di tion 

to th e W hi te H ou se an d Ca mp Dav id su bj ec te d th e A m er ic an p ub lic t o th e u nw arra nte d ex pe nditure o f m ill ions o f d ol la rs.

Th e Amer ican people do not w an t to re str ic t a P re si dent’s mob ili ty , nor to 

im pr ison him in th e W hi te Hou se. N ei th er do we w ant to de ny th e ne ce ss ar y 

ex pen diture s to su ppo rt th e ac tivitie s of hi s office an d to pro te ct his sa fe ty an d 

wellbeing u nder all ci rc um stan ce s. The Hou se Gov ernm en t O pe ra tion s Com mittee 

conclud ed , ho wev er, a ft e r our in ves tigat io n th a t th e ge ne ro si ty and tr u s t of th e 

American p eo ple had been ab us ed .

Tn a re port ad op ted on May 20. 1974, by a vo te o f 36 to 0 w ith 2 ab st en tion s, tli e 

G ov er nm en t O pe ra tion s Com mitt ee mad e a nu m be r of re co m m en da tio ns to av oid 

a re pe tition of th os e prob lems. Along w ith se ve ra l co-sp onsor s, T in trod uc ed legi sla tion to carr y ou t thos e reco m men da tio ns . T h at le gi sl at io n w as re fe rr ed to th e 

Ju d ic ia ry Com mitt ee and to th is Su bc om mittee .

T hi s Su bc om m itt ee hel d hear in gs on th e bill duri ng th e 93 rd Co ng ress a nd m ad e 

a nu m be r of ve ry benefic ial su gg es tio ns which were in co rp ora te d in to th e le gi sl atio n. Th e bill, II.R . 17311. w as th en ad op ted by th e Full Com mitt ee an d su bs equ en tly. on Dec em be r 16.19 74, by a vo ice v ote on th e H ou se F loor . U nfo rt una te ly , 

th ere w as no t sufficie nt tim e re m ai ni ng in th e 9 3rd Con gress fo r th e Sen at e to a ct 

on th e bill, so I ha ve ag ai n in trod uc ed vir tu all y id en tica l le gi sl at io n in th e 94 th 

Con gress w ith m in or tec hn ical co rrec tio ns .

Se ve ral gu id el in es w er e fol low ed in d ra ft in g th e bill. One. th e bill does no t 

re str ic t th e Se cr et Se rvice in carr yin g out it s le gitim at e ac tivitie s. Tw o, th e bil l 

does re quir e th e Se cret Se rvice an d oth er Gov ernm en t ag en cies to develop m anage rial an d fisc al co nt ro ls to re du ce oppo rt uni ties fo r th e b la ta n t misus e of p ub lic 

money . Thr ee , th e bil l unites ob lig atio na l au th o ri ty an d ac co unta bility in one 

Gov ernm en t ag ency—th e Sec re t Se rvice . Four, th e bill does no t re str ic t pre si ­

de ntial mob ili ty, but does pr ov id e some gu idel ines th a t sh ou ld pr ec lu de a re pet ition of th e em bar ra ss in g an d ill eg al pra ct ic es we foun d. The se gu idel ines sh ou ld 

be benefi cia l to th e ag en cies a nd t o t h e p ro pert y o wne rs a s w ell.

T will no t ta ke th e tim e to disc us s ea ch section of th e bil l, b u t w ill su m m ar iz e 

briefly t he m aj or p rovisio ns . U nd er t his le gi sl at io n :

Th e Sec re t Se rvice ca n pr ov id e per m an en t se cu ri ty fo r each pe rson or fa m ily 

unde r it s pr ot ec tion a t on ly one no ng ov ernm en t-o wne d lo ca tion a t a tim e.

Pro cu re m en ts wo uld ha ve to be m ad e by Gov ernm en t pe rs on ne l ac ting on w ri tte n r eq ue st s a nd w ith rei m bur se m en t f ro m t he S ec re t Servi ce.

Ther e wo uld be no lim it on oth er go ve rn m en t ag en cies ’ pr ov id in g te m po ra ry as si st ance to th e S ec ret Servi ce.

Per m anent im pr ov em en ts wou ld hav e to bp rem oved if ec on om icall y fe as ib le 

or if re qu es te d by th e ow ner : if t he ow ne r does no t re qu es t th e remov al an d th ey 

a re no t remov ed , th e pri vate ow ne r wo uld ha ve to re im bu rs e th e Gov ernm en t in 

an am ou nt eq ua l to th e in cr ea se in th e fa ir m ar ket va lu e of his pro pe rty.

Mr. Cha irm an , mos t of th e m em be rs of th is Com mittee are too fa m il ia r w ith 

th e ab us es th a t ha ve oc cu rred in th e ex pen ditur e of pu blic fu nds in co nn ec tio n
3

with the privately-owned properties of Mr. Nixon. AVe cannot again subject the 

American taxpayers to such abuses. Neither can we continue to make such expenditures at an unlimited number of locations.

Passage of this legislation will he beneficial, not only to the American taxpayers by precluding the misuse of public funds in this manner, but will also 

assist tlie President, the Vice President, and the Government agencies involved 

by setting forth basic guidelines and limitations as to how public money can be 

spent on privately-owned properties. This legislation will protect an innocent 

President from embarrassment caused by over-zealous aides seeking to gain favor 

and will protect Government officials from pressures of a President or his aides 

who fail to respect the public trust they hold.

[A copy of H.R. 1244 follow s:]
4

04th C O N G R E SS 

1st S ession H. R. 1244

IX TH E HO US E OF BE PK ES EX TA T1 VES

J anuary 14,1975

Hr . Brooks introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committees on Government Operations and the Judiciary

A B IL L

To establish procedures and regulations for certa in ‘protective 

services provided by the Uni ted State s Secret Service.

1 Z>c it enacted 1>!J the Senate and House of llcprcsc nla2 tires of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That this Ac t may be cited as the “Preside ntial Pro tection

4 Assistance Act of 1975”.

5 Sec. 2. In performance of the protective duties of the

6 United States Secret Service pursuant to section 305G of

7 title IS of the United States Code (pertai ning to the protecS tion of the Pre sident of the United States and other persons) 

9 and the first section of the Act entitled “A n Ac t to authorize

10 the United States Secret Service to furnish protection to 

31 major presidential or vice presidential candidates” , approved

I
5

1

2

3

4

5

G

7

8

9

10

11

32

13

14

15

1G

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2

Ju ne G, 1968 (Public Law 90 -3 31 ; 82 Slat. 17 0) , Fe de ral 

departm ents and agencies shall assist the Un ited States 

Secret Service by —

(1) providing, with reimbursemen t, personnel, 

equipment, or facilities on a temporary basis;

(2) providing, upon advance written request of 

the Directo r of the United State s Secret Service or his 

authorized representativ e and upon reim bursement by 

the United States Secret Service of actual costs, such 

facilities, equipment, and services as are required by the 

United States Secret Service to provide full-time security for each protecte e at no more than one pro per ty at 

a time not in Governm ent ownership or control, such 

pro perty hav ing been designated by a President, 

Preside nt-elect, former Preside nt, or any other person 

entitled to protection und er the above provisions of law, 

as the one pro per ty to be secured under this paragr aph . 

Wh ere more than one family mem ber is eligible for 

Secret Service protection, there shall be only one such 

designated pro perty allowed per family. How ever, such 

limitation shall not be construed to app ly to members 

of the imm ediate family who do not permanen tly reside 

with the pers on entitled to prote ctio n;

(3) providing, upon advance writte n reques t of 

the Directo r of the Un ited States Secret Service or his

47 -058— 7J 2
6

1

o

Qo

4

5

6

7

S

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

OQ

23

2o

3

authorized representative and upon reim burseme nt by 

the Secret Service of actual costs, such facilities, equipment, and services, as are required by the United States 

Secret Service to secure any other pro perty not in Governm ent owne rship or control to the exten t tha t such 

expenditures do not cumulatively exceed $10,0 00 at an y 

one pro per ty owned, leased, occupied, or otherwise 

utilized by persons entitled to pro tection und er such 

sections of title 18 and such Ac t unless approve d by 

resolutions adopted by the Comm ittees on Ap pro priations of the House and Senate, respectively.

Sec. 3. Exp end itur es by the U nited State s Secret Service 

for maintaining a perm anent guard detail and for permanent 

facilities, equipment, and services to secure non -Govern ment 

pro per ty owned, leased, occupied, or otherwise utilized by 

persons entitled to protection und er the above provisions of 

law shall be limited to properties described in section 2(2 ) 

of this Act.

'Sec. 4. All purchases and contracts entered into pursu* 

an t to sections 2 ( 2), 2 (3) , and 3 of this Ac t shall be made 

in accordance wi th the provisions of the Federal Propert y 

and Adm inistrative Services Act of .1949.

Sec. 5. Xo paymen ts shall be made pursuant to this Ac t 

for services, equipment, or facilities ordered, purchase d, 

leased, or otherwise procured by persons other than officers

24
1

o

-o

4

5

6

7

8

9

no

u

32

18

1 I

35

3G

17

38

39

20

21.

22

»>•>

7

4

nr employees of (lie F edera l Gov ernm ent duly authorized by 

the Divertor of the V nited States Seeret Service to m ake such 

procurements,

Sec. G. A ll improvem ents and other'items acquired pu rsua nt to this Act shall rem ain the. pro per ty of the Fe de ral 

Governm ent. U pon term ination of entitlem ent to Seeret Service prote ction or if a President, Presiden t-ele ct, former Presi ­

dent; or other person entitled to prote ction und er section 

305(5 of title 18 of the 1 niled States Cod e and the first section of the Act entitled “A n Act to authorize the Un ite d 

States See ret Service to furnish protection to major Pre sidential or Vice Preside ntia l candida tes", approved .Tune G, 

19(58 (Pu blic Law 90 -3 31 ; 82 Sta t. 170) designates a‘differe nt pro perty to be so secured, all improvements or oth er 

items shall he removed from the original pro perty unless it 

is economically unfeasihlc to do so, as dete rmined by the 

Uni ted States Seeret Service, e xcept that, such improve ments 

or other items shall he remo ved and the prop erty restored 

to its. original state, regardless of the determination of econom ic unfeasibility, if the. ow ner of such pro per ty at the time, 

ol dete rmination requests removal. If improvem ents or oth er 

items are not removed, the owner of the pro per ty at the time 

ol determ ination shall compensate, the Gov ernmen t for such 

21 improvements or oth er items to the extent they hav e in-
1 creased the fair mar ket value of the property as of the date

2 of transfer or termination.

3 Sec. 7. Exp end itur es under this Act shall be from funds

4 specifically appropriat ed to the 1 nited States Secret Service

5 for carrying' out the provisions of this Act. Public funds not 

G so appro priated shall not be used for the purpose of securing

7 any non-govt rumen tally-owned pro perty owned, leased, oc-i

8 cupied, or otherwise utilized by persons entitled to protec tion

9 under section 3050 of title IS of the United States Code and

10 the first section of the Act entitled “A n Act to authorize the

11 United St ate' Secret Service to furnish protection to majo r

12 presidential or vice presidential candidates’’, approved Ju ne

13 <5, 1968 (Public Law 90 -331 ; 82 Stat. 17 0) .

I I Sec. 8. The United States Secret Service shall transmit 

15 a detailed report of expenditures made pursuant to this Act 

lii to the Committees on Appropriations and Committees on

17 Governm ent Operations of the House of Represen tatives and

18 Senate on March 31 and September 30 of each year.

19 Sec. 9. Exp end itur es made pursuant to this Act shall be

20 subject to audit bv the Com ptroller General and his auth or21 ized representatives, who shall have access to all records

22 relating to such expenditure s. Tin* Com ptroller General shall

23 transmit a report of the results of any such audit to the Conf24 mittees on Appropriatio ns and Committees on Governme nt

25 Operations of the House of Represe ntatives and the Senate,
9

6

1 Seo. 10. Section 2 of the A ct entitled “ An Act to a uthor2 ize the Un ited States Secret Service to furnish protection to

3 major presid ential and vice presidential c andidates”, approved

4 JFune G,. 1968 (Pu blic Law 90 -3 31 ; 82 Stat. 17 0) , is

5 repealed.
10

Mr. F lowers. A bill, in substantially the same form, was beard 

before this subcommittee in the last Congress, reported favorably to 

the House and passed the House on December 16, 1974. Mr. Brooks 

was also the principal sponsor of the bill in the last Congress.

AVe thought it well to move forward rapid ly on it in this Congress, 

and tha t is the purpose of this, which is the first item of business of 

the subcommittee in this 94th Congress.

I would like to say, Mr. Keller, we welcome you to the subcommittee.

I know you testified in the previous hearing on it before, and we will 

be delighted to hear what you have to say about it.

If Air. Moorhead has any opening remarks, or any other members 

of the subcommittee, they may speak now.

Mr. Mooriiead. Mr. Chairman, I think the major concern that 

many of us have is the protection granted to families of ex-Presidents, 

which has proliferated in recent years to the extent tha t it is pretty 

bard to convince ourselves o r the American people th at the type and 

extent of protection offered is really necessary.

One of the Congressmen who served on this subcommittee last year 

said during the hearings that we were apparently building up a 

monarchy in this country where we expected people who served in 

high office and the ir families to be treated all their lives in such a way 

tha t they were held apa rt from the rest of the public.

We had information that a third of a million dollars was being 

spent a year on each of the wives of former Presidents when, most of 

them, probably don’t need any protection at all.

AVh at we are tryi ng to do is to bring some rhyme or reason into 

an area tha t really has gotten out of hand. I thin k what would be 

most helpful for us is for you to tell us where we can brin g this thing 

under control and still give the protection t hat is absolutely necessary 

for our Presidents and ex-Presidents. I am almost certain that there 

will be a bill tha t will come out and tha t will be a most important 

piece of legislation. B ut could you give us some information that tells 

us where we can do the job without damaging the overall protection 

t hat is really necessary.

Mr. Flowers. Mr. Mazzoli, do you have a statement at this point?

Mr. Mazzoli. None, Mr. Ch airm an; except I had a chance, being new 

to the committee, to study the material tha t Mr. Brooks sent to us 

yesterday and to read the report of the committee on the 93d Congress 

on dealing with this very bill. Perhaps Mr. Keller’s statement, which I 

haven't had a chance to look at, would answer one or two areas of 

inquiry that I will have.

This is a very important area. I think we saw how the system was 

abused, and we hope that perhaps the input of this committee might 

prevent the abuses in the future.

Air. Flowers. Mr. Pattison.

Mr. P attison. No, Mr. Chairman.

Air. Flowers. AVe will hear from you at this point, Air. Keller.
11

TESTIMONY OF EOBEET F. KE LIEE , DEPUTY COMPTEOLIEE GENEEA L OF THE UNITED STATES. ACCOMPANIED BY IE VIN E M.

CEAWFOED, ASSOCIATE DIEECTOE, GENEEAL GOVEENMENT

DIVISION

Mr. Keller. T hank you. Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee. First, I would like to introduce Mr. Crawford. Associate 

Director of our General Government Division, who was responsible for 

the work we did in connection with Key Biscayne and San Clemente 

last year.

As you know, and as you just mentioned. Mr. Chairman, we appeared before your subcommittee on August 21, 1974, to testify on 

II.R. 11499, a bill somewhat similar to the one under consideration 

today. Our testimony was based primarily on a review we had made 

of the expenditures for protective purposes at Key Biscayne and San 

Clemente which resulted in a report by the Comptroller General to the 

Congress dated December 18, 1973. The principal recommendations 

in our repo rt were t hat appropriation s for expenses of private residences for Presidential protection should be made to the Secret Service 

and no other funds should lie available for that purpose.

Second, the accounting system of the Secret Service should require 

the expenses at private residences for protection purposes be auth orized by the Director or the Deputy Director of the Service.

Third, the Secret Service should make an annual public report to 

the Congress showing in as much detail as security will allow expenditures made on private premises.

And last, the report made by the Secret Service should be subject to 

audit by GAO and GAO should l>e given complete access to all records, 

tiles, and documents suppo rting expenditures made by the Service.

In addition, we suggested that the Congress might wish to consider 

limiting the number of private residences a t which permanent protective facilities would be provided for the President.

These recommendations were consistent with the changes in law 

proposed in II.R. 11499 except for the GAO audit provision, which 

was later included. Turning now to the bill under consideration. II.R. 

1244, we believe t hat it is consistent with all the principal recommendations made by the GAO in its report. There are only two relatively 

minor comments which we wish to offer. First, we suggested in prior 

testimony that the language in section 2—and that is the language 

which requires complete reimbursement with respect to reimbursement 

of certain costs where military equipment and men are used. We don't 

know why this suggestion was not adopted but we will point out 

again tha t there may be difficulties in costing the services on a satisfactory basis as will be a necessity for some substantial increases in 

Secret Service appropriations. I raise it for your consideration.

The second question was raised by us at the hearings last summer 

concerned what, would be a reasonable amount to allow’ for facilities, 

equipment and services to be provided by the Secret Service in secur-
12

ing any property under section 2(3 ). This is the additional property 

other than the one permanent residence.

The bill under consideration last year provided tha t such expenditures could not cumulatively exceed $5,000. We stated tha t if past 

assistance provided by GSA to the Secret Service at other than a 

principal residence is taken as a measure of what is required, the $5,000 

limitation was too low. We cited examples where Grand Cay in the 

Bahamas was visited by President Nixon and the Haywood Ranch 

in Texas owned by President Johnson.

On the basis of what we found in making our report last year, we 

believe th at the $10,000 as presently provided in the bill is much more 

reasonable than the $5,000. In addition, the bill under consideration 

introduces a measure of flexibility by providing tha t additional 

amounts may be expended if approved by resolution of the App ropriations Committees of the House and Senate. So in the case of real 

emergency there would be a control by Congress if they were to go 

over the $10,000 limitation.

That concludes my prepared statement. We believe the bill under 

consideration is the type of bill that we would recommend as a result 

of our review of the San Clemente and Key Biscayne expenditures 

last year. We think it builds in a system of accountability which wasn’t 

present in connection with the Key Biscayne and Sail Clemente 

activity.

There was a great deal of difficulty fo r us in determining who authorized certain expenditures, how they came about, etc.

The bill tha t you have under consideration would require tha t the 

determination as to the necessity for the expenditures be made by 

the Director of the Secret Service, and in addition you have an additional control in tha t the Secret Service will be required to use its 

own money rathe r than somebody else’s.

Under the prio r situation the Secret Service did have authority by 

Congress to call on any agency of the Government to furnish services 

without reimbursement.

Mr. Flowers. We appreciate that, Mr. Keller. I don’t think I have 

any specific questions tha t you have not already laid to rest, so to 

speak. Section 2(3) of the present bill now contains a limit of $10,000 

rath er than $5,000 at other properties in addition to the primary one, 

so that is taken care of already. I don’t have any further questions 

that I will direct to you or your associate.

Mr. Moorhead, do you?

Mr. Moorhead. Last year, we were considering an amendment that 

would limit the amount of protection given to widows of ex-Presidents. With the Experience tha t you have had. do you think the degree 

of protection that is now being given is really necessary?

Mr. Keller. I really can’t answer that, Mr. Moorhead, because I 

think the GAO is not in a position to judge the necessity for security 

precautions to be taken. I think that is up to the Secret Service. In our 

study last year—correct me if I am wrong. Mr. Crawford—we did 

not get. into this area.

I might add that we are presently making a review as to the expenditm •es that have taken place at Key Biscayne and San Clemente since 

President Nixon resigned last August.
13

Air. Moorhead. I think one of the things that concerns some of us 

is th e fact tha t protection lasts for many, many years, when there is 

no longer any obvious danger. I think President Cleveland's widow 

was still alive in the 19-10's, so if we had had this kind of a system 

then, she might have gotten it for 50 years after he was dead.

It is just a question of whether our taxpayers should be required to 

pay this kind of expense.

Mr. Keller. I have to defer the question to the Secret Service. 

I think the Service is in a better position to answer as to the need.

On its face, I would have to agree with you, but there may be 

matters I am not aware of where there is a security problem of some 

kind.

Mr. Moorhead. Under the bill that we presently have, section 9 

especially makes some changes in our practices. Can you live with 

this bill and perform the duties tha t you have adequately under the 

bill as it is now constituted?

Mr. Keller. We are very well satisfied with the bill, Mr. Moorhead, 

and section 9 was put in at our suggestion last year. In our dealings 

in Key Biscayne and Sail Clemente, we did not have any real problem 

of getting access to the records of the Secret Service. We suggested 

section 9 only as a precautionary measure because in the future things 

might change. We thou ght it would be well to have a clear requirement in the law tha t we should have complete access to the records 

for audit purposes.

Mr. Moorhead. I have no further questions.

Mr. F lowers. Mr. Mazzoli.

Mr. Mazzoli. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have some questions. One is to what extent is the Government 

responsible for protecting the persons of the Presidential family? Is 

there an age limit on how long this kind of protection continues?

Mr. Keller. I t is set out in the law in title 18, section 3056 the law 

requires the Secret Service, subject to the direction of the Secretary, 

to protect the person of the President of the United States, the members of his immediate family, the President-elect, the Vice President, 

or other officers next in order of succession to the Presidency and the 

Vice President-elect, and to protect the person of a former President 

and his wife during his lifetime the person of a widow of a former 

President until her death or remarriage and minor children of a forme]- President until they reach the age of 16 unless such protection 

is declined.

While we are on this subject, I would like to bring up another 

matter which may not be germane to this bill, but with which we 

have had some problems in the past, and some differences with the 

Secret Service.

You may recall we had the Vice President Agnew situation last year 

where he received protection for some time afte r he left office. We 

have construed the authority of Secret Service to protect persons in 

as limited to those persons defined in the law.

Tha t has caused some problems. I would suggest the committee may 

want to look at these provisions and see i f it wants to broaden them 

out and possibly give the Preside nt some discretion to order protection 

in certain cases.

47 -05 8— 75------ 3
14

Mr. Mazzoli. Mr. Keller, you brought up one thing I would like to 

go into in just a second. Firs t, I note tliat section 2 of our bill indicates 

tha t there is an opportunity for the Secret Service to protect more 

than one residence in the event t ha t p art of the Presidential family— 

presumably minor children—don't live with the President. I refer to 

the words “Where more th an one family member is eligible for Secret 

Service protection there shall be only one designation of property is 

allowed per family.” The bill further provides tha t this would not 

apply when family members do not permanently reside with the 

President.

I assume th at would be a minor child going to a boarding school 

somewhere away from Washington. Do you read it th at way?

Mr. Keller. Yes; 1 would read it tha t way. Tha t provision, I 

believe, was put in in connection with consideration of the bill last 

to take care of a situation where a President would own a residence, 

his wife might own a residence, and I think the committee was trying 

to pin it down to make it a family situation.

Mr. Mazzoli. It seems to me again we are talking about the problem 

of proliferation of protection, and it seems to me you can have a Pres idential family because of children going to different boarding schools 

strewn out all over the continent and we would have Secret Service 

people all over the place and communications networks that would run 

the taxpayer a considerable amount per year. T hat concerns me. Are 

you satisfied that this is a reasonable limitation on what can be done?

Mr. K eller. I am personally satisfied with it. I don’t know how to 

get around the problem because if a President has minor children 

who are away in school, they are entitled to protection. I presume 

they are subjected to threats on occasion, and I think it would be a 

mistake to limit the situation if their security is involved.

Mr. Mazzoli. Let me ask you this question, Mr. Keller. Does somebody have the righ t of oversight or the righ t of determining the 

propriety of expending sums on permanent changes in facilities with 

respect to the Presidential family tha t might be, bv reason of schooling, in several different cities, or is this a Secret. Service decision, 

(hough it comes from their budget, which is not reimbursable?

Mr. Keller. Under the law it would be up to Secret Service to 

make the determination. I don’t know anyone offhand who could overrule them. Perha ps the Secretary of the Treasury, but the law speaks 

to the Director of the Secret Service; it does not speak to the Secretary.

Mr. Mazzoli. Let me ask you this : You mentioned former Vice 

President Agnew, and I was going to refer to his house in Kensington.

As I understand, and I saw some of the pictures tha t were run in 

the newspaper about the guardhouse put up and the brick fences and 

all this type of thing, and correct me if I am wrong—but I understand 

he was aggrandized in the eventual sale of that property by the installations made at the taxpayers’ expense.

Would this bill we have before us prevent tha t kind of thing from 

happening?

Air. K eller. Yes: I think it would. Perhaps some of the work done 

by Secret Service did enhance the value of the property. At the same 

time I thin k we have had a very fast growing real estate market in 

Washington, which probably had something to do with the increased
15

pric e. An d then I suppos e th at being the resid ence of a form er Vice 

Pr esiden t cou ld have enhanc ed t he value.

Bu t un de r the pro vision of section 6 o f the bill it very specific ally 

says th at all impro vem ent s sha ll rem ain the pr op erty of the Go vernment and th at the y shall be removed af te r the pro tec tion is over. If 

the y are not removed, th e owner of the prop erty at the tim e of the 

term ination is requ ire d to com pen sate the Governm ent fo r such im ­

pro vem ents to the e xte nt they hav e increased the fa ir m arke t v alue of 

the prop erty.

So if it did increase the value of the pr op erty, the Gover nm ent 

would be en titled to pa ym ent fro m the owner of the prop erty.

Mr. Mazzoli. W ou ld you expla in, the n, “these item s sha ll be removed at the term inatio n of the pro tec tion, unless it is det erm ine d 

by the U.S. Secre t Ser vice th at i t is econo mica lly unfea sib le to do so.”

Does th at chang e the ne t effect of wh at you ju st told me?

Mr. Keller. No, sir , I do n’t believe so. If the Government de termines it is economically imp ossible to do so, th at would make sense 

fro m the G overn me nt’s sta nd po int.

I th in k of an exa mple of a wall. You te ar down a wall and you 

hav e some, used br icks. You can’t move a bri ck wall. T he Secret Service 

migh t well mak e a de ter minati on th at i t isn ’t wo rth re moving th e wall, 

bu t the wav I would in te rp re t the bill, if the prop erty is enha nced by 

th e wall being pu t in there , the owner wou ld have to pay fa ir m ark et 

value fo r th e enh ancement.

But there is an othe r pro vis ion in the bill which I th in k is a good 

one. If t he owner says, “I do n't care wh at it is worth, this th in g is an 

eyesore to me and I wan t it ou t,” the Government would hav e the 

res ponsibility to tak e it out.

Mr. Mazzoli. Who determines wh eth er or not it is economically 

feasible o r u nfe asible?

Mr. Keller. Tha t deter mination wou ld be mad e by the Secret 

Service.

Mr. Mazzoli. So th ey decide------

Mr. Keller. Yes.

Mr. Mazzoli. If th at wa ll th at the Secret Serv ice originall y constr uc ted fo r sec urity p urp ose s is upon t erm ina tio n of p rotec tion de termined by th e own er o f th e prop erty, say, a for me r Vice Pr esiden t, to be 

an eyesore, a d isgrac e to the pr op erty, he could orde r it removed at our 

expe nse ?

Mr. K eller. Yes, sir.

Mr. Mazzoli. O n the othe r hand, if t he Secret Service felt un ilat er ­

ally th at it was unfea sib le to remove th at w all, t hen the owner would 

be r equired to keep it and to pay th e U nited State s any enhan ced p ro perty va lue unle ss he elected to have it torn down ?

Mr. K eller. Th at is the pr ovision in section G.

Mr. Mazzoli. An d you are satisfied th at is p rotec tion enough to the 

Am erican p eople?

Mr. Keller. I do n’t know how much fu rt her you could go. Tha t is 

my prob lem. Th ere wou ld be. I assum e, some problem of determ ining 

did it enh ance the p ro pe rty , how much, an d I thi nk you wou ld hav e t o 

get ou tside ap praisers to w ork th at wi th you.
16

Mr. AIazzoli. So you have flexibility in this bill or any other statutes 

on the books to allow some oversight on determinations of what p roperty values are and what has been, for instance, an enhancement to the 

property ?

Mr. K eller. The General Accounting Office has authority to look at 

any transactions of the Government. We could question them, but we 

couldn’t say, “You can’t do it.”

In this area I wouldn’t think we could overrule the determination, 

but we could sure look at it and make a report to th is committee and 

say we don’t think it is a good determination.

Mr. Mazzoli. Thank you, Mr. Keller.

Mr. F lowers. Mr. Pattison.

Mr. Pattison. Xo questions.

Mr. F lowers. Ms. Jordan.

Ms. J ordan. Xo questions.

Mr. F lowers. Thank you very much, Mr. Keller, we appreciate 

your testimony, and I am sure it will be considered by the subcommittee.

We will now invite Mr. Boggs, Mr. Long, and Mr. Hill, of the 

Secret Service, to join us a t the witness table. I believe you have someone else with you, too.

Mr. Boggs is Deputy Director of the U.S. Secret Service, and he 

has with him Mr. Long and Mr. H ill, who are A ssistant Directors.

TESTIMONY OF LILBURN E. BOGGS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, U.S. SECRET

SERVICE, ACCOMPANIED BY CLINTON J. HILL. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, PROTECTIVE FORCES; FRANCIS A. LONG, ASSISTANT

DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATION; AND ROBERT McBRIEN, SPECIAL

ASSISTANT FOR SPECIAL LEGISLATION AND PROJECTS

Mr. Boggs. Yes: and I would introduce Mr. Hill. Assistant Director, 

Protective Forces: Mr. Long, Assistant Director, Administration; 

Air. McBrien, Special Assistant for Special Legislation and Projects.

Mr. Flowers. Very good. We will be happy to hear from you.

Air. Boggs. T do have a statement, very much the same statement 

I made at the last meeting.

We are pleased to appear before you and the other distinguished 

members of this committee to present the views of the U.S. Secret 

Service regarding 11.11. 1244, a bill to establish procedures and regulations for certain protective services provided by the U.S. Secret 

Service.

At the beginning, I should tell you tha t the concerns tha t prompted 

the introduction of the bill before you today have already been the 

subject of a careful review bv the House and Senate Subcommittees 

on Appropriations that have the responsibility 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 Appro priations 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.
17

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.

M r. Flowers. We will certainly receive that.

[The information referred to follows:]

Department of th e Treasury,

United States Secret Service, 

Washington, D.C., February 22, 197J/.

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 

adjustm ents 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 approval of the Deputy Director.

Additional copies of SS Form No. 1911 may be obtained from the Administrative Operations Division in the usual manner.

II. S. Knigh t.

Attachment.

P rocedures for th e Acqu isition of Space, Alterations, and Services at

Locations I nvolving 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 protective 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 or 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, furn iture, 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 par t of any structure, property, site, or other 

physical entity.

4. Survey or Requirements.—The Secret Service will conduct its usual survey 

to determine what measures are necessary to provide the desired level of 

protection.

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 tha t 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 tha t 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.
18

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 tha t 

is required to be performed will be obtained by the requesting office from the 

protectee or his designated represen tative. When representativ es are designated 

to act for protectees, such authorization s shall be obtain ed 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.

8. Processing of SS Form No. 1911, “Request for Space, Alterations, Equipment, and Services at Locations I nvolving Protective Operations".—SS Form No. 

1911 will Ite initiat ed by the app ropriate Special Agent in Charge or Assistant 

Director involved. Cost estim ates will be determined by the requesting office in 

conjunction with the A dministrative Operations Division in the Office of Administratio n. Any cost information required from the General Servces Adm inistration will be obtained by the Adm inistrative Operations Division, which will also 

serve as the contacting office w ith th at agency. Afte r the requisite approvals and 

certificatio ns a s to the availability of funds ha s been obtained, the Adm inistrative 

Operations Division will issue the app ropriate job orders, purchase orders, or 

contracts, as the case may be. The performance of any work require d will be 

monitored jointly by the Adm inistrative O perations Division and the app ropriate 

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 usua l manner, all requests, concurrences, and approvals requ ired by these procedures 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 therea fter , 

preferably w ithin 24 hours.

10. Accounting and Reporting.—Costs will be accumulated f or each location indicating whether the property is Government-owned or leased or privately-owned 

or leased. Any reports or notices required by law pertainin g 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 perform ed and the costs incu rred 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 Dire ctor’s memorandum of October 15. 1973, subject 

“Space for Protectees,” File No. 539.0 (x 610.0) is hereby rescinded.

H. S. Knight.
19

REQUEST FOR SPACE. ALTER ATIONS, EQUIPMENT ANO SERVICES

AT LOCATIONS INVO LV ING PROTECTIVE OPERATIONS

A. G E N E R A L IN F O R M A T IO N

FAOE NO.

NAME OF SITE LOCATION |_ J O R IG IN A L REQU ES T

| C O N F IR M A T IO N OF

FIL E NO.

n G O V T OW NE D f~~l P R IV A T U V O W N IO 620.0

n G O V T LE AS EO 0 PR IV A T B L V LE AS ED

NAME o r REQUESTOR OF FICE

CONTACT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TELEFHONE NO. REQUIRED COMFLETION DATE

E. A P P R O V A L S

O PER ATIO N AL

• AIC DATE

A D M IN IS T R A T IV E F . A V A IL A B IL IT Y O F F U ND S C E R T IF IC A T IO N

AD-ADMINISTRATION (•lONATURB) DATE (FMO USB ONLY)

AGE NC Y

DATE

U N IT E D S T A T E S S E C R E T S E R V IC E SSF IS It (02-74)

ADMINISTRATIVE OPERATIONS
20

Mr. Bogus. In revi ewi ng the procedures you will note they are all 

enco mpassing, an d include ope rations at both privately owned 01 

leased sites and prop erty as well as G overnm ent-ow ned o r leased sites 

and pro perty . In addition to mee ting the concerns of the House and 

Senate Subcomm ittees on Ap prop ria tio ns, the y tak e into account and 

implem ent the reco mmendations of the Co mp tro ller Gen eral in Ins 

rep ort to the Congress en titled “Protec tio n of the Presiden t at Key 

Biscayne and San Clem ente (W ith I nformation on 1 rote ctio n of 1 ast

Pr es id en ts)” B-165950. .

A com parison of the procedures with II .lt. 1244 indicates that sections 4 and 5 are covered un de r exi sting s tatute s, as is section 9, w ith 

the exception of the repo rti ng requ irem ents . Hie sections of the bill 

no t addressed by our procedures arc those th at would hamp er Secret 

Service opera tions by pla cin g lim itations on the amount of funds 

th at could be expe nded , the restric tion of perm anent pro tec tion to 

one location, and the eliminat ion of the assistance pro vid ed to the 

Secre t Service by oth er agencies witho ut reim bursem ent. In our view, 

all of these latter items are of grave concern to us in th at the y will 

eit he r serio usly impede the level of pro tection th at we can pro vide, 

or res ult in some instances in a greater expend itu re of fund s th an 

would otherwise be t he case, a nd cause serious problems fo r the S ecret 

Serv ice in predict ing bu dg eta ry requ irem ents . In th is reg ard , the 

repeal of section 2 o f the act of Ju ne G, 1968 (P ub lic L aw 9 0-3 31), is 

of pa rti cu lar concern to us.

W ith the indulge nce of the comm ittee, it might be ap prop ria te at 

th is point to review the evolution of the assistance provide d by oth er 

agencies to the Serv ice in ca rry ing out its pro tective resp onsibilities.

As you know’, the opera tions of the Sec ret Service were caref ull y 

reviewed by the P resid en t’s Commission on t he Assassin atio n of Pr es ident Ken ned y, bette r known as th e W arren Commission. In its report, 

the Commission made substan tial reco mm end atio ns relative to the 

level of pro tection being affo rded the Pr esiden t. In its rep ort, the 

Commission men tioned, among oth er things , th at the pro tection of 

the Presiden t is in a real sense a Gover nmentwid e res ponsibility 

which must necessarily be assumed by variou s Government agencies. 

Th e Comm ission fu rthe r sta ted th at “p rotec tin g the Presiden t is a 

difficult and complex tas k which require s full use of the best resources 

of m any pa rts of o ur Gov ernmen t. Rec ogn ition t hat the resp onsibility 

mu st be sha red increases the likelihood th at it will be met.”

Sub sequent to the Commission repo rt, the Secre t Service mad e 

arr angeme nts with various Gov ernment agencies fo r their specializ ed 

su pp ort as the need arose witho ut any pro vision for reim bursem ent. 

These inform al arr angeme nts were the basis for the express s tatutory 

au thor ity conta ine d in section 2 of Publi c Law’ 90-331. In its repo rt 

on the bill the Senate Comm ittee on App ro pr iatio ns stated :

The proposed language will provide specific authoriz atio n of a long-established 

practice of utiliz ing other Federal departments in the protective assignments. 

This assistance may include, but is not limited to, th e provision of personnel and 

facilities for intelligence gathering, medical, tran spo rtation, and communications 

purposes. It elimin ates any doubt of the legal basis for such practice and assures 

Treasury direction of the protective functions.
21

When the conference report on the bill (II.B. 16488) was called u p 

before the House, the following statements were m ade:

Liist week, we pave support to the President’s emergency action. A resolution 

(II.J. 1292) was adopted by both Houses—and signed by the President on tlie 

same day—to provide authority for the safeguarding of Presidential 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 autho rity for this action.

Our attention has also been focused once again on the need for other Federal 

departments 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 protective functions have become a government-wide responsibility. The task of protecting our Presidents involves fa r more than the availability 

of trained agents. It requires the coordination of all law enforcement agencies 

for intelligence gathering, the availability of safe transportatio n facilities and 

adequate communications 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 to us from the legislative history of Public Law 90-331 

that the Congress has not intended tha t the Secret Service shoulder 

the entire Federal financial burden of protective activities and tha t 

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 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 v ariety of specialized needs which 

could occur in the total protection environment. Inasmuch as our 

requests for supp ort are made to a number of different agencies, the 

budgetary impact on any one particular agency is minimized.

The repeal of section 2 of Public Law 90-331. a t this time, would 

raise a whole host of issues without providing resolutions. Fo r instance, 

would the Secret Service be required to reimburse the Department of 

Defense for the purchase, maintenance, operational cost, and security 

of planes utilized by protectees, as well as the salaries of the crews and 

other support personnel involved, the use of the worldwide communications networks, and the utiliz ation of ordnance bomb disposal and 

other specialized personnel.

Along these lines, T should point out that under the provisions of the 

Public Buildings Act Amendment of 1972, the Secret Service currently 

is required to budget and account for all expenditures made for alterations and the installation of security equipment at both privately 

owned or leased property and Government-owned and leased property.

In view of the above, we strongly urge that section 2 of Public Law 

90-331 not be repealed as provided by section 10 of th e bill before you, 

and tha t the current arrangements for assistance from other agencies 

which have proved so satisfactory in the past not be disturbed.
22

In the event this committee and the Congress retain the provisions 

of section 2 of Public Law 90-331, then the provisions of section 2(1) 

of ILK. 1244 become moot.

With respect to sections 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 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 $10,000 limitation in 

section 2(3) of the bill on the amount th at 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 3 which 

prohibits the maintenance of a permanent guard detail to secure a 

second residence.

The rationale for this conclusion is that, notwithstanding 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 $10,000 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 protective detail to do a complete inspection of the 

premises before they could be occupied. Depending on the frequency 

of use, the cost, of the additional personnel involved together 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.

The requirement for reimbursement in section 6 raises additional 

questions. For instance, the fence installed around the Truman residence some years ago at a cost of a little over $5,090 may well be 

worth as much as $50,000 or more at today’s fair market prices. Under 

such an assumption, the protectee or an estate would in some instances 

come under a severe financial strain upon termination of protection 

at a p artic ular site should the requirement for reimbursement remain.

Section 7 of the bill is related to section 2 in tha t any support 

received from other agencies would be subject to reimbursement from 

funds appro priated to the Secret Service. Fo r the same reasons cited 

earlier with respect to section 2, the Service urges tha t this provision 

not be adopted.

With respect to section 8, it should be noted that the Secret Service 

has been directed bv the Subcommittees on A ppropriations to submit 

quarterly reports of activities performed and the costs incurred to 

the Appropriations Committees of the Congress. I might add, too, that 

under existing law. all records and accounts of expenditures are subject to audit by the General Accounting Office.

In summary. Mr. Chairman, we believe that the procedures already 

established at the direction of the Subcommittees on A ppropriations, 

together with existing statutes, are adequate to meet the concerns of 

the Congress with respect to our protective operations.
23

Due to the exigencies of the situation, time did not permit clearance 

of this statement with the Oflice of Alanagement and Budget.

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.

Air. Flowers. AVell, sir, let's talk in specifics.

Air. Boggs. Yes, sir.

Air. F lowers. You say tha t procedures have been worked out where 

Subcommittees on Appropriations will take care of any future problems and you don’t need the constraints of law. I am not sure that 

that is so. at least from my point of view. You know, we remember 

very well here in 1975 the disclosures of 1973 and 197-1 insofar as Key 

Biscayne and San Clemente are concerned, and I wonder if 10 years 

hence we shall have as fresh a recollection of it, and if we don’t put 

these constraints into law, they will be lost by the wayside at some 

future date when the Subcommittees on Appro priations might change 

and not have the same reflective thought on the situation as they 

do now.

Now, specifically, what procedures have been worked out with the 

Appropriations Subcommittees which would restrict the expenditure 

or the claim upon other agencies to spend funds for a secondary pr ivate residence of a President such as the Key Biscayne property of 

former President Nixon.

Air. Boggs. First, the internal procedures have been realined, and 

regulations, as I submitted for the record, which establish the series 

of necessary approvals as recommended by the General Accounting 

Oflice, and appear in this bill.

Air. Flowers. By what agencies?

Air. Boggs. Within the Service. In other words, no expenditures 

are made without the approval of the Director or the Deputy Director. 

There is also a fiscal review prior to a request coming to mv desk for 

approval.

Air. Flowers. But gaining that approval there are no other constraints? In other words, a President, if he happened to be a very 

rich man with worldwide residences such as, for instance, the current 

A’ice President of the United States, a future Director of the Secret 

Service or Deputy Director might approve more than two residences 

even,

There is no rule within these regulations tha t says tha t that will 

be the case, is there?

Air. Boggs. No, sir : and in response to that we still feel and maintain that we are fiscally responsible and a judgment factor enters 

into the additional residences as to frequency of use, length of stay. 

1 hese would determine whether permanent installations should be 

put in. I f it is a residence that is infrequently used, fo r instance, then 

our decision probably would be no permanent installation. We could 

handle th at situation with a trip package made for protective purposes. 

I here are many factors that enter into a final judgment as to whether 

permanent installations would be made and also the degree o f permanent installation that would be put in.

But in addition to that, if the restriction by law says there will be 

absolutely no others, then, of course, we don't have the flexibility of 

making tha t determination.
24

Mr. F lowers. Well, one thing the Congress would be saying, should 

this bill be passed—you know this is a determination of public policy 

tha t I don't think the Secret Service is in a position to do for us— 

it is saying to this President or any future President tha t you are 

on notice that we are going to protect one private home for you and 

tha t is all and if you don't want the job on tha t basis, don't seek it.

I think tha t this Congress is going to make tha t pronouncement 

by this legislation.

We provide, 1 think—and this is a matter for consideration—a whole 

lot of places for the President to visit, military reservations, the 

Camp David property, of course, the White House, and one other is 

about the number of houses th at a normal President even could grow 

accustomed to. But th at is a public policy determination.

I have no other questions at th is point, sir, and I will ask Mr. Mooi^ 

head if he does.

Mr. Moorhead. Do you feel that this will interfere with your protective function in any way i

Mr. Boggs. It would in terfere with the level of the protection, yes, 

Mr. Congressman.

Mr. Moorhead. 1 Tow ?

Mr. Boggs. In tha t with the restriction on the installation of equipment we are taking away the ability to provide the highest degree of 

secure environment. . . . .

Mr. Moorhead. Doesn’t there have to be some kind of limitation 

as to how many of these places should be protected throughout the 

countrv and around the world ?

Mr. Boggs. You are talking about somebody in office?

Mr. Moorhead. Yes.

Mr. Boggs. In office, the limitation can be placed on the number of 

places we would protect, but that does not preclude the principal from 

going to other places, and our protective responsibility prevails 

regardless.

Mr. Moorhead. I know, but say President Ford visits Vail, Colo.— 

and this year he didn’t occupy his regular apartment, I understand, 

but was given an apartment—would you think of putting in extra 

protective services on a permanent basis in a place where he goes for 

one vacation only?

Mr. Boggs. With the one vacation only and 2 weeks a year, no, sir. 

I doubt it.

Mr. Moorhead. I am not trying to get into Mr. Ford's problem, but 

when you have a situation where perhaps a place lie owns isn't used 

very much, you can get into a situation such as we did with President 

Nixon where it looks like the Government is spending a lot of money 

on private property and really the protective need isn't there over a 

long period of t ime.

Mr. Boggs. As I responded to the chairman, a judgment factor will 

enter as to how much it will he used. If it is 2 weeks a year, our ju dgment would say no. we would not go to the expense of putting in 

permanent installations.

Mr. Moorhead. You know, we have Camp David available, Presidents all use that; give them one other vacation home they can have, 

and T suppose you could have spots all over, but as a matter of p racticality Presidents don't have time to get to these places.
25

Mr. Boggs. Well, again, I am being redundant, but I say in no way 

are we going to restrict a President on the number of places he may or 

may not go, but judgment, as I mentioned, as to how frequently will it 

be used and does it justify permanent installation. If so in the long run, 

it may be a saving factor. I f he uses it frequently, we can make permanent installations and reduce the necessary amount of manpower tha t 

has to be moved. But as I say, regardless of how many residences or places th at the 

limitation may state, tha t does not restrict the President or any 

protectee from going to any number of other places, and we still 

have to protect him.

Mr. AIoorhead. What will be the ii^pact. of the reimbursement 

requirements under this bill on your budget?

Air. Boggs. Again, as we point out—and Mr. Keller addressed himself to this—the ability to protect the budgetary need for support we 

obtain may not be insurmountable, as he says, but it is a very difficult 

thin g to do, because we not only obtain support from GSA, which 

is all reimbursable now and in our budget, but from the Department of 

Defense and other agencies.

Mr. Moorhead. You reimburse the GSA now?

Air. Boggs. Yes, we do.

Air. Moorhead. That pa rt wouldn’t make much difference to you.

Air. Boggs. No, but it would have a very definite inflationary impact 

on our budget.

Air. AIoorhead. W hi t do you think of the limitation on protecting 

Presidential widows, such as we were considering last year?

Air. Boggs. Again, as I mentioned. Congress passed a law that we 

protect the widows of former President, and we follow what we 

are required to do. We have introduced a legislative package which 

is in the Treasury Department now. We have recommended a change 

in title 18, section .3056, to limit the protection of widows of former 

Presidents to a period of 6 months afte r death of the President.

Air. AIoorhead. AVill the fact of GAO access do any particu lar 

harm?

Air. Boggs. There is no harm. They have tha t authority now, and

1 would hate to thin k we were uncooperative at any time. They have 

the authority, they have access to our files. U nder the new system it 

is even easier to capture the figures and facts they are looking for, 

and, as I say, I thin k that section is a redundancy in that they can 

come in at any time.

Air. AIoorhead. Insofar as the section 10 we are talking about, on 

the surface at least, it relates to major Presidential and Vice P residential candidates?

Air. Boggs. I am sorry, I didn’t understand that.

Air. AIoorhead. You were referring to section 10 of the bill. Section

2 of the act. entitled “An Act to authorize the United States Secret 

Service to furnish protection to major Presidential and ATice Presidential candidates.”

Air. Boggs. But t ha t section 2 is the broad language of the au thority 

of the Director of the Secret Service to call upon any Federal agency 

in its protective mission. That is not restricted only to candidate 

nominees.
26

Mr. Moorhead. One tiling I wanted to be sure, we are not taking 

away vour authority to protect major candidates?

Mr. Boggs. That is covered in section 1 of 90-331. Section 2 is merely 

the ability to call upon other agencies fo r support on a nonreimbursable basis.

Mr. Moorhead. Thank you very much.

Mr. F lowers. Mr. Danielson.

Air. Danielson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

That, portion of your statement which you had completed before I 

arrived, I have now read, so I am familiar with the entire statement.

As I see it, you make a few comments here which I think we must 

consider. You made the comments to the effect that the implementation 

of the bill as a law, the one that we passed last year, might conceivably 

cause added expenses in some respect.

I think before we pass out this bill, if we do, I will want more 

detail on that because my purpose is to combine optimum protection 

for the President with the most efficient use of money.

Beyond that, I am going to make a couple of comments. I think 

perhaps the Secret Service has totally missed the point of the legislation tha t went out of this committee last year. In going through your 

statement. I see repeated references to the fact, apparently, that the 

Subcommittees on Appropriations of the House and the Senate have 

given instructions to do thus and so. and they have set up guidelines.

From that, since it is repeated throughout the statement, I can only 

infer tha t you feel that oversight should be exercised by and supervision should be exercised by and authority granted by the A ppropriations Subcommittee.

I want to set the record straight. As far as this Member of Congress 

is concerned, oversight and authorization are the responsibilities of 

the legislative policy committees, such as the Jud iciary Committee. 

It is the function of the Api >ropriations Committee only to make 

appropriations within the authority which is granted to them by the 

legislative committees. And this committee will do the authorizing, 

not the A pprop riations Committee.

I know it has been a sloppy practice of the Congress in the past to 

legislate open-ended authorizations, in effect stating that there is 

authorized to be appropriated such amount as the Appropriation s 

Committee deems fit.

As far as this Member of Congress is concerned, tha t is now history, 

closed, it is not negotiable. One middle section of a parag raph referred 

to the “careful review by the House and Senate Subcommittees on 

Appropriations that have the responsibility for recommending funds.’7

Er ro r Xo. 1: they have no responsibility for recommending funds. 

They must act within the auth ority tha t we grant them.

Next line, “At the direction of the Subcommittees on Appropriations 

and with the assistance of their staff's, we have developed” plans. Well, 

again, I want you to be in tune with the times, tha t here is where the 

direction comes from, and not the Subcommittees on Appropriations.

I do not wish to make any artificial limitation on the funds needed 

to provide optimum security, but the oversight will be done here, and 

I hope the Secret Service will recognize that is one of the facts of 

legislative life, governmental life, and will assist us in meeting our
27

joint responsibility of adequate optimum security without a needless 

waste of the tax funds.

You stated at the top of page 7-----

Th at it would be totally impractical for the Secret Service to accurately project 

for budgeta ry purposes the variety of specialized needs which could occur-----

Et cetera.

It may be difficult, but I submit t ha t it is going to be the obligation 

of the Secret Service to project for budgetary purposes whatever those 

expenditures are going to be. You are going to have to either do it 

here or you arc going to have to do it before the Subcommittee on 

Appropriations, and before the Subcommittee on Approp riations has 

that authority, it will have to be justified here, so you might, as well get 

your accountants to work to do some budgeting as far as I am concerned.

On page 9 von refer to permanent security for residences.

I suppose we could get into a philosophical debate on what is permanent security but I have said optimum security because I want to 

distinguish. I presume we could have a greater security for Presidents 

if we had a series of little Fo rt Knoxes around the world, regardless 

of whether it is here, or the Atlantic coast, or someplace else that would 

be involved.

Tha t is obviously not practical. I think we need reasonable optimum 

security and discretion and commonsense have to be factors in how 

much security we provide.

You mentioned the Trum an fence, a fence around the Trum an 

residence installed, I assume in 1945 or thereabouts, at a cost of $5,000. 

It may well be worth as much as $50,000 at today’s fair market price. 

Maybe you have a valid point. Perhaps in reviewing the bill we should 

say fai r market value, depreciated, or some such thing. That can be 

taken care of bv standard accounting procedures.

As a matter of curiosity, I have seen that residence and seen the 

fence. What in the world is it made of i

Mr. Boggs. Wrought iron.

Mr. Danielson. I s it anywhere near as expensive as the aluminum 

fence at Biscavne ?

Mr. Boggs. It would depend on the current cost of installation.

Mr. Danielson. W hat is wrong with chain link fences? They are 

not beautiful but you could have a hedge around them to cover them. 

They are horse high, hog tigh t, and bull strong, as we used to say 

back on the farm. Are they good security ?

Mr. Boggs. In some instances, yes. In some instances, no. One of 

the factors is that the protectee has to give approval for the installation.

Mr. Danielson. I thin k proper urging from the Congress-----

Mr. Boggs. We have been turned down on chain link fences.

Mr. Danielson. Next time enlist our aid. I think with some planting 

or whatever is appropriate in the geography, planted around the chain 

link, you have a good security.

Mr. F lowers. Would the gentleman yield?

Here is a Californian picking on a Florida property. ITow would 

a chain link fence look out in California obscuring the beautiful landscape ?
28

Mr. D anielson*. Hibiscus around it, oleander. We have a multitude 

of beautiful plants, bushes, vines we can grow there, ivy. In our beneficient climate you can take the ugliest fence in the world and make 

it beautiful—no problem.

Mr. F lowers. Mrs. Jordan.

Ms. J ordan. Ilow are decisions made within the context of the 

Secret Service agency about the nature and the extent of equipment 

which must be installed or changes which must be made in a residence 

in order to protect the protectee? Who makes t ha t decision, and how 

do you arrive a t tha t decision? Ilow many people are involved in it?

Mr. Boggs. A new residence, for instance, will sta rt with a survey 

conducted by our experts in various fields, the physical protection, 

technical, fire protection, whether alarms may be needed, this type of 

thing. They make a recommendation on the survey of certain type of 

equipment and the installations that should be made.

Ms. J ordan. Are these experts employed in the Secret Service 

agency ?

Mr. Boggs. Yes; that recommendation goes to the appropriate Assistant Director, Mr. Hill, who reviews the recommendations made by 

the technicians. He may make changes and reduce it or increase it, 

depending on his judgment and the judgment of his staff at that time. 

It then goes to the Assistant Director for Administration, who has 

the fiscal responsibility in making the review as to what our recommendations are with the estimated cost: Is tha t a fai r cost? Can we 

afford it? If he then approves it, it comes to my desk and I make 

the final review on it.

Ms. J ordan. Do you ever consult with the representatives of the 

Presidents?

Mr. Boggs. I t has to be done for any installation made on private 

property, yes. Not as to the type of equipment. In other words, I 

shouldn't say that we need a fence. We have been turned down on chain 

link fences. Determination sometimes is made as to esthetics, as it 

matches the esthetics of the property. The esthetics sometimes enter 

into it. Do our recommendations meet the esthetics of the property 

and the neighborhood where it is to be installed ?

Other people have to look at it as well. I t can't be objectionable to 

the community. However, we make a recommendation in the light of 

what will be accepted and at the most reasonable cost.

Ms. J ordan. Do you give greater weight to protection than to 

esthetics ?

Mr. Boggs. Yes; very definitely.

Ms. J ordan. Once you make the determination of cost, you make 

that final determination; is that correct?

Mr. Boggs. Not necessarily as to cost but as to need and can we meet 

the costs and is it reasonable?

Ms. J ordan. Throughout your testimony you talk about how complicated the reimbursement requirement would make your procedures. 

I cannot quite understand why a reimbursement feature, if enacted 

into law, would complicate your proceedings.

Mr. Boggs. We are talking about one thing. Miss J ordan. We are 

talking about installation. We bear the cost of that. There are other 

things involved. We request aircraft and highly specialized support 

personnel such as bomb disposal ordnance people. There is more than
29

one type of support tha t we have utilized from other departments, 

other than just installation.

Ms. J ordan. You don’t want to pay them for the use of their supporting service?

Mr. Boggs. We are talking about the very difficult task to project 

budgetary costs in this area of transportation, personnel used from 

other departments, experts from other departments, liecause we cannot 

predict the traveling of our protectees. We do not know how much the 

President is going to travel, or the Vice President, and we have other 

protectees.

There has been great direction here on the President, which is our 

highest priority, but we have several other protectees, many other 

protectees; 140 foreign dignitaries last year that we have to move with 

around the country. This is where the other support enters into it to 

a great extent, other than the permanent installations. To project th at 

in a budgetary process, i t is a very difficult thing.

Ms. Jordan. It could be done, right?

Mr. Boggs. I lean to my fiscal expert on that.

Ms. J ordan. Could it be done? Could you make a projection of th at 

kind?

Mr. Long. Tf the Congress required it, we would attempt it.

Ms. J ordan. No fu rther questions.

Mr. Flowers. Than k you.

Mr. Mazzoli.

Mr. Mazzoli. T hank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Boggs, I would like to ask you—you mentioned the judgment 

factor which would be involved and how much and the extent to which 

security devices will be installed. This would prohibit and perhaps 

minimize the dangers of abuse of the system. T would ask you this 

question: Were these judgm ent factors involved in judgments with 

respect to San Clemente and with respect to Key Biscavne? Are there 

some new procedures now you would perhaps levy against these proposed projects tha t you didn ’t before?

Mr. Boggs. In the sense of San Clemente and Key Biscavne, as fa r 

as I am concerned, the installations the Secret Service made were 

necessary. The same judgment factor was there as far as need and the 

type of equipment and installation tha t might be needed.

Mr. Mazzoli. Is not your judgment factor practically constrained, 

limited by the fact tha t in vour set of requirements back here you 

demand concurrence of the protectee? This would mean that you are 

not going to get your strong fence, which is good security and maybe 

not estheticallv too beautiful, but the protectee does not want it; he 

wants some sort of classic aluminum. How can you say there is a judgment factor when your judgment is conditioned bv what the protectee 

wants?

Mr. Boggs. Not necessarily what the protectee wants. Mr. Congressman. Let me use an example of the wall at San Clemente, if vou will.

That is a community. Congressman Danielson has been there and 

knows the type of community, construction, building restrictions, and 

in a private community the determination indicated that we needed a 

wall for security purposes. So we came up with renderings of walls 

tha t would match the esthetics and meet our purposes. One of the
30

three was approved. The cost factor was practically the same in all 

three as fa r as that was concerned.

In other areas we recommend a cliain-link fence, and we will do that. 

Mr. Mazzoli. If I were the protectee and had a mansion somewhere,

I would want the top dollar I could get out of it afterwards and try 

to put the top dollar into it. It would seem to me I would turn down 

chain-link fences. That would be my judgment as to protection and 

looking to the future upon retirement.

As I understand these things, I again look at least currently at the 

fair market values of whatever is installed. It seems to me th at there 

are some questions as to why the concurrence is required. I would ask 

you that question, why is concurrence required?

Mr. Boggs. The concurrence is required, will they let us make an 

installation on their property ?

Mr. Mazzoli. If they don’t?

Mr. Boggs. Then we have to realine our security level and substitute 

manpower where needed.

M r. Mazzoli. Perhaps if the President makes a judgment he does not 

want a chain-link fence, a cast-iron thing, who decides whether he is 

to get it?

Mr. Boggs. It does not mean we agree we will put in a cast-iron fence.

Mr. Mazzoli. You think the concurrence is a requirement in this 

whole procedure ?

Mr. Boggs. Concurrence to allow us to make an installation on their 

private property.

Mr. Mazzoli. If you say to the President, “I concur, you need a 

fence.” you take it from there or do you have any fur ther opportunities 

to decide what kind of fence ?

Mr. Boggs. We would and have submitted rendering suggestions on 

the type of fence we would put in tha t would meet the needs and also 

in some instances meet the esthetics. I f tha t is not acceptable, we are 

not going above that dollar figure, to the best of my knowledge, to 

meet a desire because they want something fancier.

Mr. Mazzoli. Would not the fact that you can no longer shift these 

costs to (ISA or some other agency of government result in a compatible move here? Th at would make this thing very clear cut?

Mr. Boggs. It has already been done. Mr. Congressman. Those installations we pay for. That is in our budget.

Mr. Mazzoli. Currently in your budget. T hat would not change?

Mr. Boggs. No, sir.

Mr. Mazzoli. On page 10 of your statement you mention that under 

such an assumption, a $50,000 fence versus the $5,000 fence the Congressman talked about earlier, under such an assumption the protectee or GSA would in some cases come under severe financial strain 

upon termination of protection if you are challenging the reimbursement section. As I understand tha t section, Mr. Chairman, tha t protectee could order it removed in a property rehabilitated at our 

expense?

Mr. Boggs. That is correct.

Mr. Mazzoli. What is the problem ?

Mr. Boggs. The reference to that, Mr. Congressman, was if we put a 

fence in 20 years ago a t $5,000 and the protectee had to be reimbursed 

for that at today’s fair market value.
31

Mr. M azzolt. They w on’t have to reimb urse us ? T hey can say to you, 

“T ake th e fence out. I can n ot affo rd to reimb urs e yo u” ?

Mr. Boggs. That is r ight . T he removal of th at fence wo uld cost more. 

Th is gets into the economic feasibility stu dy and th e resu lt of th at 

determ ination made is i t is n ot fe asible to remove it, then it goes t o t he 

pr op er ty o wner fo r an agreem ent as to wh eth er it r em ain s or does n ot 

rem ain. If he say s take it out, we take i t out.

Mr. Mazzoij. If I may correct you, the pr op erty o wner alw ays has 

th e ri ght of last re fu sa l; the y can or de r the U.S . Go vernme nt to 

remove th at fence. “ I cannot afford to reim burse the U.S . Gover nm ent 

$50,000 app reciated co st” ?

Mr. Boggs. Absolutely .

Mr. Mazzoij. We d on 't have the little old lad y example in that situ ­

ation. You seem to m ake a case here f or tha t.

Mr. Boggs. I was merely com me nting on the reimb ursem ent at fa ir 

m ar ke t value a t c ur re nt prices.

Mr. Mazzolt. Reim burse me nt w ould not have to occur?

Mr. B oggs. I f you ha ve to rem ove it, no.

Mr. Mazzolt. We w ould h ave to p ay in th e la st analysis ?

Mr. Bo< jgs. On the othe r ha nd , if th ey d id n’t make a rei mb urs em ent 

at fa ir m arke t value, there may be some reason to leave it th ere , whi ch 

costs the Go ver nment less.

Mr. Mazzoij. As I un de rstand it, the pro tectee ha s the op tio n of 

accep ting the enh ancem ent an d reim bu rsi ng the gov ern me nt fo r it o r 

or de ring the Go vernm ent to remove the enh anc ement and res tore the 

pr op er ty to it s pre vio us conditio n at no cost to the protectee?

Mr. Boggs. Correct.

Mr. Mazzolt. Ac cording ly, at page 10 you ap pe ar to misre present 

th e sit ua tio n. To the exten t you d on ’t hav e the li ttl e o ld lad y sit ua tio n 

who is lac ed wi th the pro blem of wh eth er she is either going to pay 

$50,000 for a $5,000 fenc e or not, she can alwa ys orde r th e U .S. G overn ­

me nt to remove t he fenc e, a nd she does not pay one cen t f or the rem oval 

and does not pay fo r an y p ro pe rty enhan cem ent ?

Mr. B oggs. Th at is co rrect.

Mr. McBrtex. E xcuse me : wo uld n’t we, thou gh , hav e then a situ atio n where we ha d a fence which was wo rth $5,000 when insta lle d? It s 

fa ir marke t value is now $50,000. Yo ur nice lit tle lady wa nts it 

removed, and th e rem ova l an d res toratio n costs for the Fe de ral Govern men t wou ld be $10,000, o r s om eth ing lik e tha t. Is n’t it more rea sonable to leave i t on the pr op er ty ?

Mr. Mazzolt. Th e point is. maybe we sho uld nev er hav e insta lle d 

the fence in the first place. Th is gets us to th e idea o f w hy con currence 

is need ed on wha t sort of initial ins tal lat ion . Because of the fac t th at 

you hav e pr op er ty values th at hav e histo ric all y been ap pr ec iatin g, 

th at is the pro blem, a nd th at is what we say about this f ac to r th at the 

gentl em an was ta lk in g a bout, this jud gm en t fa cto r.

I do n't see it. Th at is the prob lem.

Mr. Daxielsox. Wou ld the gen tlema n yie ld fo r an observation?

I th in k these changes in fa ir m arke t valu e, t hat pro vision of the bill 

could easily be accomm odated. W ith ou t sa ying it is a good idea, one 

occurs t o me. 5 ou could have a p rov ision th e pro tectee co uld re ta in th e 

fenc e at cu rre nt fa ir m arke t value or cost, which eve r is the lesse r. 

1 hen yo ur $50,000 fence would cost $5,000 an d you can have it.
32

Mr. Boggs. T hat is basically what it is now. This is the way it is 

now and this is the wav we are proceeding on Key Biscayne.

Mr. Mazzolt. Than k you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. F lowers. T agree with the gentleman from California. Tha t 

might be a likely amendment to put in the legislation.

The gentleman from New York.

Mr. P attison. I have a couple of questions.

Mr. Boggs, I take it what you are saying relates to the budgetary 

problems, reimbursements from other governmental agencies. Is t hat 

given the fact t hat you don’t know where the President is going to go 

or under what conditions; you have no way of estimating what your 

budgetary needs or equipment is going to require? Indeed, if you did 

have to do that, what you would have to do is—I will direct this to 

Mr. H ill—simply make an enormously large budget estimate and live 

within that?

Mr. Boggs. The answer is yes. We would have to do that.

Mr. P attison. Bet us get back to the abuse at Key Biscayne and 

San Clemente. Assuming those were abuses, what things were put in 

that perhaps were a little more grand than were needed? Would you 

say those abuses were primarily due to method or people th at were 

involved in making the decisions? Has tha t been corrected at this 

point?

Mr. Boggs. It has been corrected. I am the one who made those 

decisions, Mr. Congressman, during San Clemente and Key Biscayne. 

I feel today the decisions I made ultimately were necessary to provide 

protection and satisfy our mission.

I would say that obviously we thought we were prudent then, and 

I am convinced we are more prudent now.

Mr. Pattison. There was some testimony and newspaper reports 

about things being ordered essentially by the President’s lawyer.

Mr. Boggs. We had nothing to do with that. I am sorry. We stand 

firm we were not involved in that.

Mr. P attison. Those were the things tha t were troubling the Congress the most.

Mr. Boggs. Tha t may well be, bu t the Secret Service was not involved in that.

Mr. P attison. Thank you very much.

Mr. Flowers. Bet me ask you who was involved. Sav Mr. Bebozo 

or Mr. Kalmbach called up the GSA and said, “Hey, do this." That 

is what the gentleman is talking about. “The fireplace at San Clemente, 

we want a $3,000 exhaust fan put in the fireplace at San Clemente.’’

Under your revised procedures, who is going to stop th at ?

Mr. Boggs. We won’t be in a position to stop it because that is not 

within our purview at all, exhaust fan. We put that in. not GSA. 

Tt is true that, didn’t come out in any of the hearings. That is a past 

issue why it was put in.

Mr. F lowers. Bet me ask you t his : If the Secret Service ordered 

tha t put in, would tha t be put in under your current procedures?

Mr. Boggs. I f it were needed for the purpose it was needed then, yes.

Mr. F lowers. Which would be-----

Mr. Boggs. The new fireplace put in was not functioning properly. 

It was smoking in the room and kicking off our smoke detectors every
33

30 minutes. We had our experts, fire experts and technical experts, 

make a review as to what we could do to prevent smoke detectors, high 

false alarm rate which was utilizing manpower in response and very 

had working procedure. They said, “Put in an exhaust fan.”

Mr. Flowers. Smoke detectors ?

Mr. Boggs. Yes.

Mr. F lowers. Fire alarm system?

Mr. Boggs. The smoke detectors implanted in the room, in the fire 

alarm system. The smoke from the fireplace was kicking off the smoke 

detectors at a very high rate. We pu t in the exhaust fan. I will accept 

the responsibility for th at.

Mr. F lowers. I t occurs to me, and without belaboring this, if the 

President is there, the only way that, you can protect him is i f he is 

there to be protected. I can understand the securing of a place so tha t 

you don’t have to go back through it all the time and make sure that 

bad guys didn’t come in in the dark of night and lay in wait. B ut with 

as many people around San Clemente as there would be when he is 

there, I wouldn’t imagine not discovering a fire.

Mr. Boggs. We did discover a fire but it was a result of our fire 

detection system.

Mr. F lowers. It would have been discovered otherwise?

Mr. Boggs. I t may not. I t was within the walls. It may not have been 

detected before it became uncontrollable because it was within the 

walls. Those walls were 3 feet thick, hollow, and the fire could travel 

throu gh the walls in the absence of detection systems.

Mr. Flowers. I have no further questions.

Mr. Danielson. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. F LOWERS. Y e s .

Mr. Danielson. You intrig ue me with this fire in the wall. What 

was the cause of that, wiring ?

Mr. Boggs. The fire in the wall ?

Mr. Danielson. Yes.

Mr. Boggs. I t was a result of th at same fireplace, a result of the construction of the same fireplace tha t was faulty.

Mr. Danielson. There had been a fire in the fireplace and the fireplace in some manner was faulty and therefore fire got into the walls, 

is that it?

Mr. Boggs. T o go into a little detail, they didn't have a firebrick construction in the fireplace, and they have a technical term fo r it—I forget what it is. Each time you built a fire it charred the timbers beneath 

the fireplace and eats a little deeper until it reaches a point where it 

flares into a fire. That is a cumulative thin g which takes a period of 

time to happen. This is what happened there.

Mr. Danielson. Did you thereafter reline the fireplace with 

good-----

Mr. Boggs. We didn't. They did. We told them what caused the 

fire. As a result-----

Mr. Danielson. You mean the Nixon household?

Mr. Boggs. Yes, sir.

Mr. Danielson. What I am getting at here is. it would seem to me 

that without some type of budgetary responsibility, some limitation, 

a protectee could acquire any old delightful-looking house and, in 

effect, for security purposes have it restored.
34

Mr. Boggs. I disagree, sir.

Mr. Danielson. We talk about exhaust fans. 1 think there was some 

plumbing tha t was improved down there ?

Mr. Boggs. No, sir. just the waterlines to our standpipe for firehoses..

Mr. Danielson. There was something anyway. I call pipes, waterlines, plumbing. It's not technically correct but tha t is the way 1 call 

it. I think the gentleman’s comments do illustrate tha t we must put 

some type of budgetary control on this. I don't want the gentleman tomisunderstand me. I think the Secret Service does a magnificent job of 

providing protection but I think we have to come to a recognition tha t 

there must be an optimum protection at a reasonable cost.

I suppose th at if the President is strongwilled enough and adventurous enough to want to go out and make himself consciously a target 

for somebody, he probably would veto at that point our responsibility to protect. I hope we don't elect somebody with those tendencies.

I am not criticizing the efficiency and the effectiveness of the Secret 

Service's professional work in protection. 1 do think, though, that theCongress has been irresponsible in allowing this thing to go without 

any guidelines, effective guidelines at all. As far as 1 am concerned, 

I think th at it is one of my responsibilities to try to help meet it, and I 

am going to discharge that responsibility.

Mr. F lowers. Would the gentleman agree if we passed th is legislation, we would be attempting to help ?

Mr. Danielson. That is right.

Mr. F lowers. The purpose would be to establish guidelines and help 

you folks do your job within certain rules and regulat ions. That would 

be the only purpose, not to restrict you but give you guidelines.

Mr. Mazzoli. Would the gentleman yield ?

I would make this observation. 1 think that is exactly right. I don't 

thin k you have any bargaining power and very little leverage. Y our 

function, which, as the gentleman from California suggested is being 

performed superbly, is protection of the President. To tha t we certainly doff our hats. You have very little strength to bring to bear 

upon the prestigious President or the President’s lady, who might 

herself have some elaborate grandiose view of her place in history. 

You really can't put any pressure on those people to accept security 

at a reasonable cost.

We can give you the option, hopefully the muscle, to be able to take 

the reasonable cost, and you tell us what is security. We will have to 

defer to that judgment. Then we, I hope, can give you what you need,, 

which is some leverage and strength to acquire this property at a 

reasonable cost.

Mr. F lowers. Mr. Pattison.

Mr. P attison. What would you think of a provision that goes something like th is : Once a protective device was necessary in the judgment 

of the Secret Service, and the Secret Service recommended a certain 

technical device, and the protectee rejected tha t on personal grounds, 

tha t it would thereafter be installed. Taking the example of the chain 

link fence and the wrought iron fence the difference between the cost 

of what was originally recommended and tha t installed could be 

charged to the protectee at the end of his term; would that solve some 

of the problems ?
35

Mr. Boggs. That is in there somewhere to some degre e. Th e assump ­

tio n the re, Mr. Congressman, is th at we would ha ve to co nfo rm ex act ly 

to the wishes of the pro tec tee as to the ty pe o f insta lla tio n. We do n't 

even do that now.

Mr. P attison. I am tryin g to get away fro m th is pro ble m th at we 

ap pe ar to h ave h ad where th e Sec ret S erv ice reco mmends a prote cti ve 

device which is adequate to the job of pr otec tin g an d the prote cte e 

decides th at esthe tic all y—a nd I do n't th in k the Secre t Ser vice should 

be un mindful of esthet ics eit he r—b ut the Secre t Ser vice decides an d 

the pro tectee decides wha t he wants is som eth ing much gr an de r th at 

would enh ance the value of the pr op erty. We are all in favo r of pr otecting the Pr esiden t, or the pro tectee, and we do n't wan t to do it at 

any more t ha n wh at the cost o f the p rotec tio n sh ould be.

Mr. Boggs. I wou ld say th at pa rtic ul ar device has alread y lieen 

used, in th at when we mak e rec om menda tion s fo r c ertain ins ta lla tio ns 

and the pr ote cte e w anted som eth ing a l ittle different. We sa id, “W ec an 

only pay th is mu ch.” Th ey hav e pa id the difference. That ha s been 

done.

Ms. J ordan. M r. Ch air man.

Mr. F lowers. Yes.

Ms. J ordan. I would like to know, did the Secre t Service change 

an ything it was doing as a resu lt of the helicopter land ing on the 

W hite House law n a nd th e gate crash recently ?

Mr. Boggs. A s fa r as the ga te cra sh recently, we very definitely are 

rev ising a gate stu dy. A stu dy has been conduc ted a nd pre sen ted , o r is 

being pr ese nte d Mo nday to Tr easu ry for a pp rova l as to different typ es 

of gate s. Th is has to go thro ug h many thing s, the Histo ric al Soc iety 

.and N ational Par k Serv ice. W e are n ot th e o nly ones th at have a voice 

in that. T ha t, o f course, is und erw ay.

As fa r as the helic opter l anding , yes, we hav e made definite studie s 

and revis ions , to th e exten t we can. As one Cong ressma n sa id, we cann ot 

su rro un d o ur W hite Ho use w ith ant ia ircr af t. Th is is a problem th at we 

live with.

We maintain the maxim um flexib ility possible with th at which is 

acce ptable. 1 h ere is alw ays a re stra in t on the Sec ret Service in the 

prote ctive mission. We know th at we cannot come up wi th an arm ed 

ga rri son unaccep tab le to the protectee or the Am erican peop le. Th is 

is so me thing alw avs un de r consider atio n.

Mr. F lowers. Gen tlem en, we appreciat e yo ur being with us thi s 

morning and presen tin g yo ur points of view. They will ce rta inly be 

conside red. We hav e no fu rt her witnesses sche duled, so we will close 

th is h earing.

Tha nk you very much.

Mr. Boggs. T ha nk you.

[W hereu pon, at 11:45 a.m., the subcom mittee adjou rned.]

o