’3 - 5 3 U.S. SECRET SERVICE PROCEDURES AND R E G U L A T IO N S^^

M E N T S

Storage

3 C 1975

i . ic . L l B r M h i Y 

K A N U A S S T A Iu U N IV E R S IT Y

H E A R I N G S

BEFORE TH E

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

CLAIMS AND GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

OF TH E

i j 

:P - 

■rA 

; 3 -

!

 o

□

: J3 

rA 

rA 

< t

COMMITTEE ON TH E JUDICIA RY

HOUSE OE REPRESENTATIVES

NIN ETY-TH IRD CONG RESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

H R . 1 1 4 9 9

TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURES AND REGULATIONS FOR 

CERTAIN PROTECTIVE SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE 

UNITED STATES SECR ET SERVICE

AUGUST 21, AND SEPT EMB ER 12 AND 19, 1974

Serial No. 53

42-781

Printe d for the use of the Committee on the Jud iciary

U.S. GOVERNM ENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 1974
S3 t

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDIC IAR Y

PET ER W. RODINO, J r., New Jersey, Chair ma n

HARO LD D. DONOHUE, Massachusetts 

JACK BROOKS, Texas 

ROBE RT W. KASTENMEIER , Wisconsin 

DON EDWARDS, California 

WILLIAM L. HUNGATE, Missouri 

JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan 

JOSHUA EILB ERG, Pennsylvania 

JEROME It. WALDIE, California 

WAL TER FLOWERS, Alabama 

JAME S R. MANN, South Carolina 

PAU L S. SARBANES, Maryland 

JOHN F. SEIBERLING , Ohio 

GEORGE E. DANIELSON, California 

ROBERT F. DRINAN, Massachusetts 

CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York 

BARBAR A JORDAN, Texas 

RAY THORNTON, Arkansas 

ELI ZAB ETH HOLTZMAN, New York 

WAYNE OWENS, Utah 

EDWARD MEZVINSKY , Iowa

EDWARD HUTCHINSON, Michigan 

ROBERT McCLORY, Illinois 

HENRY P. SMITH III, New York 

CHARLES W. SANDMAN, Jr., New Jersey 

TOM RAILSBACK , Illinois 

CHARLES E. WIGGINS, California 

DAVID W. DENNIS, Indiana 

HAMILTON FISH , Jr., New York 

WILEY MAYNE, Iowa 

LAWRENCE J. HOGAN, Maryland 

M. CALD WELL BUTLER, Virginia 

WILLIAM S. COHEN, Maine 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

HAROLD V. FROE IILICH, Wisconsin 

CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California 

JOSEPH J. MARAZITI, New Jersey 

DEL BERT L. LAT TA, Ohio

Jerome M. Zeifm an, General Co un sel

Garner J. Cline, Ass oc ia te Ge neral Co un sel

Herbert V u ch b, Co un sel

Will iam P. Shattuck, Co un sel

H. Christoph er Nolde, Co un sel

Alan A. Parker, Co un sel

James F. Falco, Co un sel

Maurice A. Barboza, Co un sel

Daniel L. Cohen, Co un sel

F ranklin G. Polk, Co un sel

Thomas E. Mooney, Co un sel

Michael W. Blommer, Co un sel

Alexander B. Cook, Co un sel

Constantine J. Gek as, Co un sel

Alan F. Coff ey, Jr., Co un sel

Sub co mmitte e on Cl a im s an d Gov er nm en ta l R el at io ns

HAROLD D. DONOHUE, Massachusetts, Ch air ma n

JAM ES R. MANN, South Carolina 

GEORGE E. DANIELSON, California 

BARBA RA JORDAN, Texas 

RAY THORNTON, Arkansas

Will iam P. Shat tuc k, Co un sel

Alan F. Coff ey, Jr., As so ciat e Co un sel

M. CALD WELL BUT LER , Virginia 

HAROLD V. FROE IILICH, Wisconsin 

CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi

(ID
C O N T E N T S

Hearings held on— Page August 21, 1974__________________________________________ 1

September 12, 1974______________________________ZZZZ_ZZZZZ _ZZ 49 September 19, 1974_______________________________ ZZZZZZZZZZZ 85

Te xt of II. lt. 11499_____________________________ ____ ZZ______ZZZZZ___ 2

Testimony of—

Boggs, Lilburn E., Deputy Director, U.S. Secret Service, Department 

of the Treasury, accompanied by Clinton J. Hill, Assistant Director, 

Protective Forces, and Francis A. Long, Assistant Director for Administration ____________________________________________ 85

Boggs, Lilburn E., Deputy Director, U.S. Secret Service, Department 

of the Treasury, accompanied by Francis A. Long, Assistant Director 

for Administration_______________________________________ 49

Brooks, Hon. Jack, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas _________________________________________________ (;

Galuardi, John F., Deputy Commissioner, public buildings, General 

Services Administration, accompanied by Bob Rice, Assistant General Counsel and Marc Himmelstein, Congressional Liaison Office__ 25

Keller, Robert, Deputy Comptroller General, General Accounting Office, accompanied by Irvin Crawford, Associate Director, General 

Government Division_____________________________________ 33

Prepared statements of—

Donohue, Hon. Harold D., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Massachusetts_________________________________________ 24

Horton, Hon. Frank, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New York______________________________________________ 10

Additional material—

Comptroller General of the United States, letter, Oct. 1, 1974______ 38

Department of Justice, memorandum, to Wallace 11. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, Nov. 21, 1973__________________________ 27

Department of the Treasury, U.S. Secret Service, memorandum,

Feb. 22, 1974_____________________________________________ 52

Keller, R. F., Acting Comptroller General of the United States, letter,

May 16, 1974_____________________________________________ 46

Kempin, Allan G., GSA, letter dated Aug. 21, 1974_______________ 47

San Clemente and Key Biscayne, documents____________________ 45

tun
■ — i
U.S. SECRET SER VIC E PROCEDURES AND

REGULATIO NS

W ED N ESD A Y , AUGUST 21 , 19 74

H ouse oe R ep re se nt at iv es ,

S ub co mmitte e on C la im s and

Gov er nm en ta l R el at io ns of t ii e

C om m it te e on t h e J ud ic ia ry .

D.C.

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

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, lion . Harold D. Donohue 

[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.

Pre sen t: Representatives Donohue, Mann, Danielson, Thornton, 

Butler, Froehlich, and Lott.

Also present: William P. Shattuck, counsel, and Alan F. Coffey, 

associate counsel.

Mr. Donohue. This meeting will now come to order.

1 bis morning we will have the initial hearing on the bill. H.R. 

11499, which would establish procedures and regulations for certain 

protective services provided by the Secret Service.

Fhe provisions of the bill would provide limitations and requirements for the implementation of the responsibility of the Secret Service under section 3056 of our title 18, concerning protection of the 

President and other persons, and under section 1 of Public Law 90-331 

concerning protection of major Presidential or Vice Presidential 

candidates.

[A copy of IT.R. 11499 follows:]

(1)
2

93n CO NG PvE S S 

1st S ession H. R. 11499

IN TII E HO US E OF REPR ESE NTATIV ES 

N ovember 15,1973

Mr. Brooks (fo r himself, Mr. Donohue, Mr. .Tames V. S tanton, Mrs. Collins

of Illinois, and Mr. Culver) introduced the following hill; which was 

referred to the Committee on the Jud iciary

A B IL L

To establish procedures and regulations for certain protective 

services provid ed by the United State s Secre t Service.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Ilcprc scnla2 tines of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That this Ac t may be cited as the “Presiden tial Pro tec4 tion Assistance Act of 1973” .—

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

6 United States Secret Service pursuant to section 3056 of

7 title 18 of the United States Code (pertai ning to the pro8 tection of the Pre sident of the United States and oth er

9 persons) and the first section of the Act entitled “A n Act to

10 authorize the United States Secret Service to furnish protec11 tion to major presidential or vice presidential candidates”,

T
3

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

1G

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

2

approve d Ju ne 6, 1968 (Public Law 90 -3 31 ; 82 Sta t. 

17 0) , Federal departm ents and agencies shall assist the 

United States Secret Service by—

(1) providing, with out reimbursement, personnel, 

equipment, or facilities on a tem porary basis for a period not to exceed two weeks at a ny one location in an y 

•one ye ar;

(2) providing, upon advance writte n request of the 

Directo r of the United States Secret Service or his authorized represe ntative and upon reimbursement bv the 

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

United States Secret Service to secure no more than one 

pro perty not in Governm ent owne rship or control, such 

pro perty hav ing been designated by a President, Pre sident-elect, former President, or any other person entitled to prote ction und er the above provisions of law, as 

the one pro perty to be secured under this paragra ph, but, 

if such Preside nt, President-elect, former Presiden t, or 

other person subsequently designates a different pro perty to be so secured, such pers on shall compensate the 

Governm ent for all expenditures made under this section 

with regard to the previously designated pro per ty to the 

exte nt such expenditures are not otherwise recoverable 

by th e Gov ernmen t; and
4

1 (3) providing, upon advance written request of

2 the Director of the United Stale s Secret Service or his

3 authorized represe ntative and upon reimbursement by

4 the Secret Service of actual costs, such facilities, cquip5 ment, and services, as are required by the Uni ted States

6 Secret Service to secure any other pro per ty not in Gov7 eminent ownership or control to the exte nt tha t such

8 expenditures do not cumulatively exceed $5,00 0 at any

9 one property owned, leased, occupied, or otherwise

10 utilized by persons entitled to protection und er such sec11 tions of title 18 and such Act.

12 Sec. 3. Exp enditures by the United States Secret

13 Service for main taining a perm anent guard detail to secure

14 non-G overnment pro perty owned, leased, occupied, or other15 wise utilized by persons entitled to protection under the 

1G above provisions of law shall be limited to properties dc17 scribed in section 2 (2) of this Act.

18 Sec. 4. All purchases and contracts entered into pur19 suant to sections 2(2 ) and 2(3 ) of this Act shall be made

20 in accordance with the provisions of the Fed eral Pro perty

21 and Adm inistrative Services A ct of 1949.

22 Sec. 5. No paymen ts shall be made pursuant to this

23 Ac t for services, equipment, or facilities ordered, purchased,

24 leased, or otherwise procured by persons other tha n officers

25 or employees of the Fed eral Governm ent duly authorized
5

4

1 by the Director of the United State s Secret Service to make

2 such procuremen ts.

3 Sec. G. All improvements and other items acquired pur4 suant to this Ac t shall remain the -property of the Fed eral

5 Government and shall be removed at the term ination of the

6 protective responsibility of the United States Secret Service

7 unless it is economically unfeasible, as determined by the 

S United States Secret Service, to do so.

Sec. 7. Exp enditures under this Act, except those made

10 pursuant to section 2 (1 ), shall be from funds specifically

11 app ropriated to the United States Secret Service for carry12 ing out the provisions of this Act. Public funds not so appro13 printed shall not be used for the purpose of securing any

14 liongovcrnmentelly owned pro per ty owned, leased, occupied,

15 or otherwise utilized by persons entitled to protection under

16 section 3056 of title 18 of the Uni ted State s Code and the

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

IS United States Secret Service to furnish protection to major

19 presidential or vice presidential candidates” , approved

20 Ju ne G, 1968 (Public Law 90 -3 31 ; 82 Stat. 17 0) .

21 Sec . 8. Ev ery departm ent and agency, including the

22 Executive Office of the Preside nt, mak ing expenditures pur23 suant to this Ac t shall transmit a detailed report of such

24 expe nditures to the Committees on Appropriations and Com25 mittees on Gov ernm ent Operations of the House of Rep re-
G

5

1 scntatives and Senate on April 30 and September 30 of

2 eaeb year.

3 Sec. 9. Section 2 of the Act entitled “A n Ac t to au4 thorize the United States Secret Service to furnish protection

5 to major presidential and vice presidential candidates”, ap6 proved Ju ne G, 1968 (Public Law 90 -3 31 ; 82 Stat. 17 0) ,

7 is repealed.

Mr. Donohue. The first witness we will hear from this morning is 

our esteemed associate, the gentleman from Texas, Congressman Jack 

Brooks.

You may proceed, Mr. Brooks.

TESTIMONY OF HON. JAC K BROOKS, A RE PR ES EN TA TIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM TH E 9TH CONGRESSIONAL DIS TRICT OF TH E

STATE OF TEX AS

Mr. Brooks. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to appear 

before you and my other distinguished colleagues on the Judiciary 

Committee.

An investigation last year by the Government Activities Subcommittee of the Government Operations Committee revealed that more 

than $17 million had been spent on and in support of private properties owned and utilized by Mr. Nixon at San Clemente, Calif.. Key 

Biscayne, Fla., and at the home of a friend in the Bahama Islands. 

These funds were spent for improvements, maintenance, administrative 

support, communications facilities, 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 such properties by the former 

President.

The subcommittee was not only alarmed at the magnitude of these 

expenditures—they tripled during the first 5 years of the Nixon administration over those of the previous 5 years—we were also alarmed 

at the type of expenditure we found to be occurring.

It was discovered that the American taxpayer 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 for 

a shullleboard at Key Biscayne.

We paid for heating systems in private homes in Key Biscayne and 

at San Clemente—the latter one costing $13,000.

The American public paid for the property surveys used by Mr. 

Nixon’s attorney during the settlement proceedings when he purchased 

the property in California. The American people then paid for a new
/

sewer line, over $5,000 worth of lanterns, furniture for the den, and, 

at one time, were paying more than $40,000 a year for landscape maintenance on the Nixon property at San Clemente. Government personnel 

permanently assigned to San Clemente and Key Biscayne were costing 

over $1.6 million per year.

Nlr. Chairman—you, as a member of tha t subcommittee, and I, as 

chairman, attempted to determine why such expenditures were made. 

We discovered tha t managerial responsibility for the expenditure of 

these millions of dollars was virtually nonexistent.

Mr. Nixon’s personal attorney and architect were being permitted 

to order items costing thousands of dollars and send the bills to the 

GSA. People in the White House were directing the GSA to perform 

routine homeowner services and then generate after-the-fact requests 

from the Secret Service in an effort to cover up the true source of the 

expenditures.

Not all of the fault lies with the Government agencies. The very fact 

that a President of the United States chose to maintain three private 

homes in addition to the White House and Camp David subjected the 

American public to the unwarranted expenditure of millions of dollars.

The American people do not want to restrict a President’s mobility, 

nor to imprison him in the White House. Neither do we want to deny 

the necessary expenditures to support the activities of his office and to 

protect his safety and well-being under all circumstances. The House 

Government Operations Committee concluded, however, after our 

investigat ion that the generosity and tru st of the American people were 

being abused.

In its report adopted on May 20, 1974, by a vote of 36 to 0 with 2 

abstentions, the committee made a number of recommendations to 

avoid a repetition of those problems. Some of these recommendations 

require legislation and the legislation before you today reflects those 

recommendations.

Several guidelines were followed in dra ftin g the bill. One, the bill 

does not restrict the Secret Service in carrying out its legitimate 

activities. Two, the bill does require the Secret Service and other 

Government agencies to develop managerial and fiscal controls to 

reduce opportunities for the blatant misuse of public money.

Three, the bill unites obligational authority and accountability in 

one Government agency—the Secret Service. Four, the bill does not 

restrict Presidential mobility, but does provide some guidelines tha t 

should preclude a repetition of the embarrassing and illegal practices 

we found. T hese guidelines should be beneficial to the agencies and to 

the property owners as well.

I will not, take the time to discuss each section of the bill, but will 

summarize briefly the major provisions. Under this legislation:

The Secret Service can provide permanent security for each person 

under its protection at only one non-Government-owned location at a 

time.

Expenditures for permanent installations at other privately owned 

properties would be limited to $5,000 each.

Procurements would have to be made by Government personnel 

acting on written requests from the Secret Service.
8

There would be no limit on agencies providing temporary assistance 

to the Secret Service.

Permanent improvements would have to be removed if economically 

feasible and, if not, the private owner would have to reimburse the 

Government in an amount equal to the increase in the fai r market 

value of his property.

And amendment to section 2(2) is necessary to bring the legislation 

/directly in line with the recommendations made in the Government 

Operations Committee report. A suggested amendment is attached to 

my statement.

Mr. Chairman, the members of this committee are too familiar with 

the abuses th at have occurred in the expenditure of public funds in 

connection with the privately owned properties of Mr. Nixon. We cannot again subject the American taxpayer to such abuses. Neither can 

we continue to make such expenditures at an unlimited number of 

locations.

In the last 12 months, we have made public expenditures at the 

homes of two Vice Presidents and we are now faced with a third.

1 do not know how many homes Mr. Rockefeller owns, and I am not 

suggesting any improprieties. I am pleased, however, that he will— 

if confirmed—lie provided with an oflicial Vice Presidential residence.

Now is the time to clarify to what extent Federal Government expenditures will Ixi permitted on private properties of Presidents and 

Vice Presidents. This action will be in the best interest of President 

Ford, the Vice President, the Secret Service, and the American people.

| The suggested amendment to II.R. 11499 and a section-by-section 

summary of the bill follow:]

Sf.ction -by-Section Sum ma ry of P rovision s of II .R . 11499 (W it h Suggested Am en dm en ts ) Con cer nin g th e E xpend iture of F ederal F und s on P rivate

P roperty for P re sid en tia l Security

Section 1.—Title of b ill : Presidential Protection Assistance Act of 1973.

Section 2( /) .—Permits other agencies to loan equipment, personnel, and facilities to the Secret Service for no more than two weeks at any one location in one 

year without reimbursement and without written requests.

Section 2(2).—Provides for expenditures at one principal property per protectee at a time without statutory limits, conditioned on the following:

Advance written requests by the Secret Service for non-temporary 

expe nditures;

Funding by the Secret Service of all such expenditures; and 

Reimbursement to the Government for all expenditures at such principal

property in an amount equal to the increase in the fair market value upon 

termination of protection or upon sale or transfer of the property.

Section 2(3 ).—Limits expenditures at any other location to $5,000 cumulatively.

Section 3.—Limits permanent Secret Service guard detail to one location at 

a time.

Section 4-—Requires all procurements to be made in accordance with the Federal Property Act.

Section 5.—Prohibits obligation of government funds by non-government 

personnel.

Section 6.—Requires th at all improvements be removed if economically feasible.

Section 7.—Requires that all funds expended under this act, except for temporary loans, be requested by and appropriated to Secret Service.

Section 8.—Requires reports to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations and Government Operations every six months.

Section 9.—Repeals the troublesome part of the law now in existence that left 

GSA open to unlimited expenditures. This provision will be superseded by the 

above legislation.
9

AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 11 499 TO MA KE IT CONFORM TO REC OMM ENDATIO NS IN 

GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS COMM ITTEE REPORT ON PRESIDE NTIAL PROPERTIES

1. On pa ge 2, lin e 13, st ri k e th e word “sec ur e” and in sert in lie u th er eo f th e 

words , '‘pro vi de fu ll-tim e se cu rity fo r ea ch pro te ct ee a t. ”

2. On pa ge 2, lin e 14, aft e r th e word “p ro pert y” ad d th e wor ds “a t a tim e” .

3. On pa ge 2, a t th e be ginn in g on lin e 19 be fo re th e wor d “i f” ad d th e words 

“upon te rm in ati on of en ti tl em en t to Sec re t Se rvice pr ot ec tion or.”

4. On pa ge 2, lin e 24, de le te th e word “a re ” an d in se rt in lie u th er eo f, “i f. ”

5. On pa ge 2, lin e 25, a ft e r th e word “G ov er nm en t” in se rt he fo ll ow in g: “h av e 

in cr ea se d th e fa ir m ark et val ue of th e pro per ty as of th e date of tr a n sfe r or 

te rm in at io n.”

Mr. Brooks. You do recall when I interrogated Mr. Ford when 

he appeared here as a Vice Presidential nominee, he assured us tha t 

he was not interested in elaborate expenditures at his private homes.

I will be pleased to answer any questions. I would say that you 

have a copy of the amendments to make the bill conform to the 

exact committee report.

There is one other amendment tha t I would like to point out just 

briefly and tha t is to make clear tha t the limitation in the bill on 

expenditures to one location would apply to all operations of the 

Secret Service. The amendment of that nature is provided for on page 3, line 13, where we would add, a fter the words “maintaining a permanent guard detail," “and for permanent installations, facilities, and 

equipment” which would be used to secure non-Governinent property.

I would oiler that amendment along with the other amendments. 

I will be pleased to answer any questions, but before doing so I wish 

to submit for the record the statement of the ranking member of the 

Government Operations Committee. Would tha t be the chairman’s 

pleasure ?

Mr. Donohue. That is the statement by Mr. Horton?

Mr. Brooks. ’i es, sir. I would like to put i t in. The ranking m inority 

member of the Government Operations Committee, Fran k Horton, 

distinguished member of Congress, was a very active participant 

in developing the report of the Government Operations Committee 

and strongly supported the recommendations contained in that report. 

He is unable to be here this morning, but has prepared a statement 

which he asked me to submit. His statement indicates a strong bipartisan support for this legislation. He sa ys:

As Han ki ng M in or ity Mem ber of th e G ov er nm en t O pe ra tion s Com mittee , I 

w as inv olve d in th e Gov er nm en t A ct iv itie s Sub co m m itt ee 's in ves tigat io n o f th e expen diture of F ed er al fu nds fo r P re si denta l pro pe rtie s. Th e re port pre ­

pa re d by th e Su bc om m itt ee ha d my su pport an d w as ad op ted by an ov er ­

whe lm ing m ajo ri ty of th e Mem be rs of th e G ov er nm en t O pe ra tion s Com m itt ee 

on bo th side s o f th e ais le.

H.R . 11499. w ith th e am en dm en ts su gg es ted by Mr. Br oo ks, which br in g 

th e pr ov isio ns of th e bil l in to lin e w ith th e re co m m en da tio ns o f our Gov er n­ men t O pe ra tion s Com m itt ee re port on th is m at te r, wo uld more ex plici tly se t 

fo rt h th e co nd itio ns under which th e Se cr et Se rv ice ca n ex pe nd pu blic fu nd s 

on p ri vate pro per ty an d th e te rm s un de r which it ca n seek th e as si st ance of 

th e o th er Fed er al a ge nc ies.

I su pport th is le gi sl at io n as am en de d be ca us e it wi ll pr ot ec t th e pu blic 

ag ai nst un ne ce ss ar y expen dit ure s on p ri vate pro per ty an d. at th e sa m e tim e, 

pe rm it th e Se cr et Se rvice to fulfill it s ob liga tion re la ti ng to th e pro te ct io n o f th e P re si de nt a nd va riou s oth er perso ns .
10

It is my understanding tha t he did check with a good segment of 

the administration, the current Republican administration in the 

White House, and tha t his feeling was that they would not be adverse 

to this legislation.

Mr. Doxoiiue. W ithout objections, the statement of Congressman 

Fra nk Horton will be made a part of the record.

[The statement of lion. F ran k Horton follows:]

Statement op Hon. Frank Horton—August 21, 1974

Mr. Chairman : As Ranking Minority Member of the Government Operations 

Committee, I was involved in the Government Activities Subcommittee’s investigation of the expenditure of Fed eral funds for Presidential properties. The 

repo rt prepared by the subcomm ittee had my supp ort and was adopted by an 

overwhelming majority of the Members of the Government Operations Committee on both sides of the aisle.

H.R. 11499, with the amendments suggested by Mr. Brooks, which bring the 

provisions of the bill into line w ith the recommendations of our Government Operations Committee rei>ort on thi s ma tter, would more explicitly set forth the 

conditions under which the Secret Service can expend public funds on private 

property and the term s under which it can seek the assistance of other Fed eral 

agencies. I support this legislation as amended because it will protect the 

public against unnecessary expe nditures on private property and, at the same 

time, perm it the Secret Service to fulfill its obligations rela ting to the protection 

of the President and various other persons.

Mr. Donohue. Are there any questions? Mr. Butler?

Mr. Butler. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would ask a few questions of 

the gentleman, if I may.

Thank you, Mr. Brooks, for the interest you have taken in this 

matter. I have had an opportunity to review, somewhat superficially, 

I suspect, the recommendations of the Comptroller General and the 

report of your committee. There are several questions which I guess 

are of a technical nature, bu t I would like to take a few minutes with 

you, if I might, to check into some things tha t concern me.

I notice in the letter to the chairman of the committee from the 

Acting Comptroller General, dated May 16, 1974, there are several 

comments. Do you have a copy of that letter ?

Mr. Brooks. I s that in the material ?

Mr. Butler. Tha t is in the material supplied the members this 

morning.

Mr. Brooks. Yes. Yes; I see it here.

Mr. Butler. About two-thirds of the way down on the first page, 

with respect to specific provisions of the bill, we offer the following 

comments. Now, one question is raised about what exactly 1 year 

means. Is tha t cleared up in your amendments today ?

Mr. Brooks. No, I have not seen this letter before.

Mr. Butler. Excuse me, then.

Mr. Brooks. I just looked at this letter.

Mr. Butler. All right, well excuse me. I think it would be more 

appropriate to ask you to take tha t with you, and then when we have 

another opportunity-----

Mr. Brooks. I certainly will, Mr. Butler, and I appreciate your 

consideration.

Mr. Butler. Then we could probably get into it more clearly.

The GAO au dit contained a recommendation th at the Secret Service 

make an annual report to the Congress detailing expenditures in
11

connection with private residences. Section 8 of the bill would require 

a semi-annual report, and as I read it, to the Approp riations and the 

Government Operations Committees.

Now, section 8 does not include the GAO recommendation th at they 

be authorized to audit the figures supplied by the Secret Service. Is 

my interpretation correct, or do you have any strong feeling about 

this one way or the other ?

Mr. Brooks. I am not positive whether the GAO has had any problem auditing the Secret Service. Mr. Keller, do you now audit Secret 

Service records in the Treasury Department ?

Mr. Keller. Mr. Brooks, we have not had any problem up to the 

present time. We thought, as a precautionary measure, it should be 

placed in because at some future date, some security claim might be 

raised and it might cut us short.

Mr. Brooks. T hat was my understanding and that was the reason 

we did not include it in the dra ft legislation. But they are sort of a 

cautious agency, Mr. Butler, and they would like to be positive tha t 

Lilburn Boggs or some other official of the Secret Service does not 

change his mind and cut the GAO off. So they would like to put it in 

and I do not object to it.

Mr. Butler. Could you identify for the record the gentleman tha t 

also answered just now?

Mr. Brooks. Th at’s Mr. Bob Keller, Deputy Comptroller General 

of the General Accounting Office. 1 have not seen him in a long time. 

Off the record.

[Discussion held off the record.]

Mr. Butler. Returning then to the record, Mr. Brooks, we have 

another concern of mine generally.

Do you feel tha t we have pinned down in this legislation the problem of the one protectee, basically a man and his wife and his children 

protectees, and I am not really concerned about it, but have we pinned 

this down to the sense tha t the wife could not have a separate permanent residence with these improvements, and perhaps the children, 

and was some thought given to this?

Mr. Brooks. It was thought tha t the bill itself was clear enough. 

It does not exclude the participation of a man and his wife and his 

children. All of them would be eligible for protection. If he had six 

children and they each had a house, you might conceivably feel th at 

we should not make expenditures on all six houses. I understand your 

point, as the excellent lawyer tha t you are. It may not be necessary 

to spell out limitations in the legislation, if such are determined 

desirable. The report could reflect an inten t to apply some limitation 

to the family generally so tha t if the family is living together as a 

unit, they would not be entitled to improvements on as many homes 

as there are members of the family. I th ink you have a wise point, and 

should be considered by the committee.

Air. B utler. Fine.

Mr. Brooks. To eliminate any possibility of doubt and confusion. 

I think it is an excellent suggestion.

Mr. B utler. All righ t now, let me turn to another problem.

We are disposing of our protected property for one reason or 

another. We either choose to sell it, or we choose to get another resi-
12

deuce , well, 1 think that is eno ugh, or maybe I die, any one of those 

three reasons. Some oblig ations are imposed, it changes the relatio nship, a nd 1 want to be clea r on what we are tryin g to do here.

For exam ple, let us assum e th at the situatio n aris es th at a pro tected 

resid ence —prote cted perm anently —moves out of this cat ego ry for one 

reas on or a nothe r and there are perm anent improvem ents ther e pu t by 

the Secre t Service. Now, as I un de rst an d your amend ment th at you 

offered th is mornin g, its pur pose, the amend me nt is ame ndm ent 5 to 

mak e clear th at the fai r m ark et value, the exten t to w hich th e impro vements have improve d the fa ir marke t valu e of the pr op erty the n becomes the bur den of the pr op erty owner, eit he r to pay fo r them or to 

effect th eir removal.

Now, is that your intention?

Mr. Brooks. Th at is correct. The bill as dr af ted, Mr. Bu tle r, pr ovid ed fo r the compensation to th e gov ernment fo r expenditures to the 

pr op erty if not recovered bv the Governme nt. Tha t seemed a l ittle b it 

ha rsh on second thou gh t. So, it was decided th at the com pensation to 

the Government should be for the fair ma rke t value of the enh anc eme nt in value to th at pr op erty at dat e of tran sf er or ter mi natio n. I 

th in k th at th at is reasonable in th at if you had been, as you might 

well have been, n ame d as Vice Pr esiden t, and you had a house d own in 

Virginia th at the y worked on, and you retir ed because your wife did 

not wa nt you runn ing off and tra ve lin g all over the c ou ntr y tryi ng to 

bea t me, and thin gs like th at , a nd so you qui t.

Mr. B utler. Ot he r useless ventures.

Mr. Brooks. And so you qu it. Bu t the improvem ents t hat have been 

made on the house would have been made with your acquiescence since 

it is your propert y. If they said th at they wante d to pu t a three -ca r 

ga rage and you were the Vice Presiden t and said you did not want a 

three-car garag e, the y wou ld not pu t one in. If they did pu t it in, and 

the y did not remove the ga rage when they lef t, only taki ng all of the 

com municatio ns equip me nt and things of tha t na ture, a n enhancement 

in value of $1,500 or whatever, would be the a pp ro pr iate value for you 

to com pensate the Government. It would lx1

 a benefit th at you received, 

acquiesced in, an d enjo yed a nd ma intain ed and retain ed.

Mr. Butler. All rig ht, now, so the acquiescence is what burde ns you 

with th is o bligation and if the legisla tion does not spell it out, then it 

will have to lie spelled out in the re port.

Now. the second question th at comes up is, when we star t dec iding 

the enhancement, fa ir ma rket value , th at is, I assume at the time of 

severance? 'That is the difference between the fa ir ma rke t valu e with 

the improvem ents at the tim e th at you make this decision, versus the 

fa ir ma rke t valu e wi tho ut it, because I can visu aliz e the situatio n in 

whi ch most of these imp rov ements would not add to the fa ir ma rke t 

value of a residence. And I think it would be a litt le b it un fa ir to b ur ­

den the p rope rty owner with th at.

Mr. Brooks. Well, if you burden him only with the fa ir marke t 

value of th e imp roveme nts. I do not think th at would be unrea sonable . 

Now we are n ot ch arging protectees a ny thin g except the e nhancem ent 

in fa ir mar ket valu e, and thi s, as you point out, would pro bab ly not 

be a substan tial amo unt. You know, generally, imp rovements to a 

piece of prop erty, such as a house, do not normally add too much to
13

the value. They may to the enjoyment, to the appreciation, but as 

they say, the money you pu t into your house improving the floor, and 

working on the house, and improving it, working in the yard, does not 

add too much to the value. You never get that money out. You get it 

out in satisfaction and enjoyment, but it is hard to add it to the price 

tag when you sell it.

Mr. Butler. I t depends on whether you arc buying or selling. But 

tha t is I think a fair approach to it.

Now, one other feature of this pont, and then I will give up for a 

while. How do we spell out expenditures? Are they defined somewhere 

else in the legislation? I am refer ring to line 22 on page 2, “such person shall compensate the Government for all expenditures made under 

this’Section with regard to the previously designated property.”

Now, I assume by that expenditure, we mean expenditures for capital 

improvements. But is tha t defined somewhere else in the legislation, 

or have we got to clear that up ?

Mr. Brooks. No, I do not think tha t it is. I t means all of the expenditures that are made. The Government would remove everything 

tha t could be removed, communications equipment, sensors, et cetera. 

They would probably not take out bulletproof glass if they had any 

in, because it is probably not worth tak ing it out.

They might charge a modest amount for enhancement in the stability 

provided by bulletproof glass. It would not be a lot of difference, 

probably.

They would take everything out that they can, and then the balance 

of the expenditures on permanent improvements tha t enhance the 

value of tha t property is what you would be talking about as to f air 

market value.

Mr. Butler. All right, but still with this problem: Suppose there 

are improvements which the property owner acquiesces in because they 

are necessary for protection, but not necessarily aesthetic, or they do 

not want them, but they recognize that for security purposes they have 

got to be put in there.

Then we reach this point where we turn it back, and we want to 

take them out. Is there not an option left in the landowner to say simply 

to the Government of the United States, I do not want these here, they 

may have improved the f air market value of my property, but I simply 

do not want them, take them out, I will not pay for them? Is that 

option available ?

Mr. Brooks. No. that option is not spelled out. I do not thin k we 

would have any difficulty about it. I cannot imagine really having that 

problem in determining the fair market value.

You m ight take into consideration any diminution in value that a 

remaining improvement left with the property.

Mr. Butler. No. I am thinking of purely the situation in which 

your wife just docs not like brick walls and you have got a brick wall 

and you want to get rid of it. You would rather have a hedge now that 

you do not have a security problem, and those situations come up.

Mr. Brooks. I do not know whether we would want to be obligated 

to knock it down. I think when they put it up, the protectees would 

have acquiesced to it. Even the GSA has not made those places less 

attractive. I have looked at them all. You know, even their finest arch itectural geniuses over there have not botched up those places. They 

42 -7 81 — 74------ 3
14

did not make them look worse. So I would hope th at it would not be 

a problem a nd t hat i t would n ot be necessary th at we wou ld ever cross 

th at problem.

Mr. B utler. Ba sically , I guess it all comes back to a m atter t hat ha s 

distu rbed me gen erally, and th at is maybe we are ov err eacting in try in g 

to spell out in legisla tion wh at a man ought to inheren tly to know7

 on 

how to handle him self under these situatio ns in the firs t place, and 

the si tua tio n m igh t no t hav e arisen.

An d as I go into this legisla tion , I have res erv ations about wh eth er 

we a re overreacting o r not and it is a m atter to w hich I , o f course, will 

reserve jud gm ent as we go alon g.

Mr. Chairma n, I feel like I have used up my 5 minu tes a nd I y iel d 

back f or the presen t.

Mr. Donohue. You wa nt to yield back 1 min ute ?

Mr. Butler. A nd reserve th at 1 minute un til later on.

Mr. Donohue. Mr. Mann.

Mr. Mann . Pu rsuing the line of question ing of Mr. But le r’s last 

point , it does distu rb me som ewhat to conside r the impos sibility th at 

some m onstrosity , and that is in the eyes of the beho lder, h as been constructed on p riv ate Presiden tia l prop erty for secu rity reasons th at a re 

fa r from pers onal reasons as fa r as the occu pan t is co ncerned, a nd the 

tim e comes forth for th at to be removed, and the Government decides 

it is economically unfeasible t o remove it, and he is stuck with it.

I question th at he sho uld be stuc k with it. I th in k it sho uld be his 

option to require the removal of an item th at d etr acts from the pr op ­

erty in his eyes.

Ne ith er can I conceive of th at being a b ig economic problem. As M r. 

But ler suggests, we may h ave th e appeara nce of overreacting if we are 

going to in sist on insta lling these se cur ity th ing s, and the n not be w illing to remove th em. I h ave al rea dy gotten your reactio n to it, b ut I ju st 

wante d to give you my reac tion to t hat problem.

Mr. Brqoks. My feeling, Mr. M ann, is t hat it may be an overreactio n 

to try to define too closely wh at is going to be done. I do not know 

wh eth er this prob lem will every arise. If it sho uld arise, you migh t 

well resolve it by stating in the rep ort th at if the Secre t Serv ice requires a str uc ture to be ins tal led which the protectee does no t agree 

to, he could agre e to it with the reservatio n th at it be removed wrhen 

pro tection ceases a t th at p roperty .

Le t it be in the acquiescence with the reserv ation, which might 

resolve tha t in y our m ind and in th eir m inds. I do not see it as a ma jor 

problem and I would not object to th at. I do not think it would be 

extrem ely costly, as you point out. I do not th in k it would be 

an economic prob lem to say th at the governm ent should remove it.

Mr. Mann . Yes. I would hope th at lan guage can be developed th at 

would perm it th at. At the mom ent, tho ugh, I would suggest th at 

section 6 would pro bab ly require the usual obje ctive burea ucrat ic decision and if it is economically unfeasible , lh at is it. They have no 

discre tion with reference to rem oving it, nor do the y have any dis ­

cretion to make any p rio r agreem ent to viola te section 6.

So, we can perha ps co nsid er the develo pment of some language t hat 

would give an option to the owner, not an unreason able option, but 

certa inl y somo option.
15

Mr. Brooks. Well, the basic thrust of the legislation is not to work 

any hardship whatsoever.

Mr. Mann. I am sure that is true.

Mr. Brooks. The basic thru st is not to make any money out of them. 

The basic thrust is not to enhance the ir property either. The basic 

thru st of this legislation is for one Government agency, the Secret 

Service, to build whatever they thin k is necessary for protective purposes for our President and Vice President, and to put it in and pay 

for it and protect them.

Mr. Mann. Fine.

Mr. Brooks. So we do not have half a dozen agencies doing it with 

40 different people having input and no real basic responsibility or 

accountability. I do not object whatsoever, if they want to say we will 

pay for it all, and take it out, and go in there and rip it out. We can 

work up language to give them that option. I do not thin k it is a 

serious problem at all. I will be delighted to submit some language 

tha t might resolve that.

Mr. Mann. I would appreciate it. And I do wish to add my voice 

to tha t of others w’ho recognize that your committee has done an 

exhaustive and a superb job in arriv ing at the purpose which you have 

just enunciated, and yet develop something that would also constitute 

a judicious use of the taxpayers funds and we appreciate it.

Mr. Brooks. I want to thank you. I hope that, this will eliminate 

this problem fo r all of our future Presidents, and we will never have 

another hearing as we did in Government Operations or in Judiciary.

Mr. Mann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Donohue. Mr. Froehlich ?

Mr. Froehlich. No questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Donohue. Mr. Danielson ?

Mr. Danielson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Brooks, in the bill itself I do not find reference to fair market 

value, but I do find it in your prepared statement.

Mr. Brooks. It is in my amendment, Mr. Danielson, on page 2, that 

has been added. It was not in the original bill. Page 2.

Mr. Danielson. Oh, yes.

Mr. Brooks. Line 24.

Mr. Danielson. Your proposed amendment No. 5 ?

Mr. Brooks. Yes, sir. Yes, it would just soften the impact of compensation.

Mr. Danielson. I see. I w ant to explore a little furthe r this concept 

of fai r market value. I have in mind t ha t as we have mentioned here, 

some items really do not enhance the fair market value in 

any respect whatever. And I do not, even though under the terms of 

the bill the Government retains ownership in the improvements until 

the termination of the security obligation, does the gentleman contemplate tha t these properties or these improvements would simply, 

at that time, become a part of the ownership, pa rt of the fee, and no 

compensation would be provided ?

Mr. Brooks. T hat is right. If the decision is made to have a fence 

built and it is not worth moving the fence, the government has moved 

the lights off of it, or the communications equipment, and they have 

moved everything that could be removed of economic value to the
16

government, they may leave the fence there under the bill as now 

drafted.

Mr. Danielson. If it truly enhances the value then it is contemplated—

Mr. Brooks. If it truly enhances the value of the property to tha t 

extent, the protectee should pay for it, if he has the benefit, has received the benefit. But, if there is no substantial benefit to him, and 

still none to the Government, and it is just left there, and if we do not 

have any use for it and it does not add too much, just leave it there 

and let him enjoy it, whatever it is.

Mr. Danielson. And the fair market value could lie determined as 

of the time of termination of the security relationship, rather than 

at the time of the installation ?

Mr. Brooks. That is right. Tha t would be the only fair way to do 

it. You cannot charge him-----

Mr. Danielson. No, I agree. I just want to be sure tha t this is in 

the record of the proceedings.

Another point here, although it is necessarily implicit in the bill, 

I do not find an expressed provision, at least it is not clearly expressed, that the Secret Service is authorized to make expenditures 

only for items which clearly relate to their providing a security. I am 

sure tha t this is what the gentleman has in mind here, and it tends 

to be implicit in section 2.2, line 13, where you say “services as are 

required by the U.S. Secret Service to secure no more than one 

property.”

I think you have an amendment to provide full-time security. Tha t 

is where it is implied, and this is intended, is it not, tha t this would 

eliminate nonsecurity expenditures ?

Mr. Brooks. That is correct. The basic thing th at we found in our 

previous investigation was tha t other government agencies were 

putting in installations tha t were really not security related, and the 

Federal Government has no business paying for them.

Now, if the Secret Service responsibility is for protection, and anythin g they recommend is for protection, then they must justify it 

under this, and they can come to Congress and get all the money they 

need to justify a gold-plated swimming pool if they can prove tha t 

it is security. But, the Secret Service is not going to do that. They 

are going to be more judicious about it, and they are only going to 

justify items that are trul y security. And if they do that, that is 

enough. We are not going behind that. We are not trying to nit-pick 

at how they want to protect a President or second-guess them. They 

have some'ideas that we do not know about, and we are not trying 

to limit any effort of theirs to protect a President or Vice President.

Mr. Danielson. Are you not saying actually, it is implicit in what 

you say, that any of these expenditures the Secret Service must certify 

tha t they are, if not necessary, at least desirable to meet their responsibility of providing security?

Mr? Brooks. T hat is correct, and they would-so justify before the 

Appropriations Committee when they ask for the money to make 

these expenditures.

Mr. Danielson. In other words, these expenditures would be made 

subsequent, after determination by the Director of the Secret Service 

that the expenditures are essential for meeting their obligations?
17

Mr. Brooks. That is right. Expenditures would not be made and 

then an order obtained from the Secret Service th at the work needed 

to be done. The order fo r the lights, or the request for the equipment, 

would first be obtained and then the work would be done. On a temporary basis, they would have the authority, though, to do anything.

Mr. Danielson. In connection with that, though, there will be a 

representation, a certification, by the Secret Service that these expenditures are necessary, or I could loosen it a little bit and say desirable 

for their purposes?

Mr. Brooks. I think the Secret Service has agreed to this type of 

procedure and has implemented such a procedure generally since our 

original hearings. We recommended it to them, and they have adjusted their procedures already.

Mr. Danielson. Well, I would think they would be glad to have 

it, since it is easy to follow guidelines if you have got some guidelines. And it takes them off the hook.

I want to make a comment into the record. On your point that on 

termination of security obligations, the Government must be compensated in the amount of the increase in fair market value, if any, I do 

not believe tha t we would have a right, constitutionally, not to demand tha t compensation. We are at a sticky-wicket here. The gentleman is aware of the emoluments clause, and under the emoluments 

clause, which I have studied rath er thoroughly in the last few weeks, 

it is my opinion that it is unconstitutional for the Government to p rovide any emolument other than those provided for by law at the beginning of a term, or for the recipient to retain one, and that we cannot, 

even by statute, change t hat , since it is constitutional. So, I want the 

record to reflect my comments, since that might come up in debate.

It is not ju st a ma tter of being a good guy or a bad guy. I.th ink we 

have no constitutional right to confer a benefit to a President. I think 

we could to a Vice President, but you cannot do it to a President 

during his term of office.

Mr. Brooks. I quite agree, and I spent some time on tha t same 

section of the Constitution in an effort to bring it to the attention of 

the Judiciary Committee members du ring the impeachment hearings. 

I think under the emoluments clause that the President would be fully 

protected if he paid a fai r market value, which would be adjusted 

at that time. And we are not tryi ng to-----

Mr. Danielson. The President would be protected and everybody 

would be protected.

Mr. Brooks. That is right, and he would not then be in violation 

of the Constitution.

Mr. Danielson. And again just stating so it will be in the record, 

we have a related provision in article I of the Constitution relating 

to Members of Congress and other Government employees who may 

not receive emoluments from foreign governments. I think tha t is the 

only place in the Constitution, the only other place, where the term 

emolument is used. We cannot receive an emolument from a foreign 

state other than a decoration and as a matter of just prudence, the 

Congress passed a law some years ago permitting the retention of a 

gift having a value not to exceed $50. Anything beyond $50 is deemed 

to be received for the benefit of the United States and. of course, a 

trust relationship sets up.
18

I want this to be reflected in the record, for I believe tha t as a 

guideline it would show tha t even the President cannot accept any 

emolument and certainly not one having a value in excess of $50.

I have no further questions.

Mr. Donohue. Mr. Lott.

Mr. Lott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

1 do have a few questions. I do want to commend the gentleman on 

the work he has done on this legislation. As he knows, most often in 

Washington it takes a tragedy or a disaster before legislation is developed to remedy a situation that has been maybe coming for a long 

time.

We have seen that quite often here in Washington. And here again,

I think on this legislation perhaps Congress should have worked on 

it several years ago, and I think it is a good idea, not just because of 

what happened in recent months or years, but for what could save 

the American people in the years to come and, therefore, I basically 

think the principle here is good.

There are some things t hat bother me about it, and I would like to 

address a few questions to you, Mr. Brooks. 1 am concerned about what 

happens, for instance, if you have a sale of the protected property. 

Would the President be expected to reimburse the Government for the 

expenditures tha t have been made on tha t property prior to the sale, 

or how would that be handled ?

Mr. Brooks. As I understand it, you mean if they made you Vice 

President, or Mr. Butler is still Vice President.

Mr. Lott. Okay.

Mr. Brooks.—And he leaves and he sells it, or if he sells it while 

he is still Vice President?

Mr. Lott. While he is still Vice President, his private property.

Mr. Brooks. While he is still a protectee?

Mr. Lott. Yes, sir.

Mr. Brooks. Then I think the application of the amendment on page 2 would apply, where he would pay the increase in the fair 

market value of the improvements remaining in it to the Government, 

lie would compensate the Government for that increase in the fair 

market value.

The taxpayers paid it, he got the value in it, he sold it for that. 

The Government obviously should get its part of the investment out 

of it, and he is not entitled to get it under the Constitution as an unfair emolument in violation of the limitation on his income. And so, 

I thin k he should pay it.

Mr. Lott. Let us say that Mr. Butler-----

Mr. Brooks. Whatever tha t enhancement was, whatever that 

would be.

Mr. Lott. Mr. Vice President Butler has left office.

Mr. Brooks. His Excellency.

Mr. Lott. Right. He has left office. What commitments or obligations would he have for repayments for improvements to his property 

once he left that office, voluntary or otherwise ?

Mr. Brooks. He would have the obligation of paying only the fair 

market value of the residual enhancement in t hat property which has 

been paid for by the taxpayers—and which would be of benefit to 

tha t property and enhancement in value.
19

A fair market value as of th at time. I would not think it would he a 

tremendous amount in the future.

Mr. Lott. Even though tha t it is something tha t he might have 

personally preferred not to be placed on his property. And you say 

here, I believe you speak to the point, that if it is removable, it should 

be removed ?

Mr. Brooks. That is correct.

Mr. Lott. For instance, there might be a protective wall of some 

sort which may be an enhancement. Is that a key word?

Mr. Brooks. Yes, tha t probably is a key word, counselor. I think 

enhancement is probably the word. Improvement in the property, and 

increase in the value.

Mr. Lott. These determinations would be made by GSA?

Mr. Brooks. We do not specify who would determine what the fair 

market value is, and it might be that the General Accounting Office, 

somebody like that would do it.

Mr. L ott. Now, in section 2(1), you limit the unreimbursable contributions of other agencies to 2 weeks at any one location. Would that 

be per person eligible for protection, or would it be cumulative?

Mr. Brooks. It would be per individual entitled to protection really, 

as Mr. Butler pointed out. Of course, we would not intend tha t if a 

man and his wife and six children are living together as a family unit 

tha t it would entitle them to have six homes improved. It would only 

be one family. And as I agreed with his suggestion then, it would be 

wise to make th at clear in the report. I think it is a good observation 

and a pertinent comment, and it should be put in the record to limit 

it to one family. If the children are living in the family unit, they 

would not be able to claim improvement on separate residences.

Mr. Lott. Right.

Mr. Brooks. They are not primary protectees.

Mr. Lott. Two more brief questions.

I am a little bit bothered by putting a dollar figure of limitation of 

expenditures. For instance, you say in your statement tha t expenditures would be limited to $5,000 each.

Well, certainly tha t sounds like it is enough, and certainly you 

would hope that it would be considerably less than that. But I am just 

a little bit bothered by saying $5,000 or $1,000.

Mr. Brooks. Well, this is for a second residence, and this is for 

permanent installations. This not for temporary installation. This 

would not be a van they would move in with communications equipment if you went up into the mountains in Virginia where Mr. Butler 

may go to vacation, and bring his family up there for a couple of quiet 

days to work and read and write and work on reports.

So, it is an arb itrary figure.

Mr. Lott. Did the committee just pick this figure ?

Mr. Brooks. No, it is an arbitrary figure with the thought tha t we 

are discouraging any permanent improvements at more than one residence. We ought to iimit that one pretty severely, and a temporary installation would probably cover the camphouse. Five thousand dollars 

to put something in. I do not know what you would spend it for, but 

you would have something to put in as a permanent installation. And 

if you wanted to raise that to $10,000, you could. It is just an arbitra ry
20

figure, but you need to put some in to indicate, in my judgment, a limiting factor on this second installation.

Mr. Lott. I would not be inclined necessarily to raise it. I am just 

concerned about the idea of setting a figure, a minimum or a maximum 

figure. That is something tha t I want to think about some more, but 

I wanted to point out to you th at it bothers me a little bit.

And one final question, the problem of improvements on properties 

of other persons visited by the President. You know, not where he is 

living, but just where he goes in for a visit, and it might be for a 

month. Does this bill preclude improvements in tha t situation?

Mr. Brooks. This bill does not preclude any limitation on his 

primary residence. It docs not preclude any temporary installations 

of the Secret Service.

When Vice President .Johnson came to my farm in Texas, I will tell 

you what the arrangements were. The Secret Service came early and 

they scrounged around and looked around and they determined that 

the barn would be the best place for them. They did not have any 

sensor equipment in 1963, and it was not a very fancy operation. They 

wanted to be sure th at they had plenty of coffee. That was the m ajor 

concern.

They looked around. The neighbors had been living there,—they 

were all born there,—they had been living there a good many years, 

and I had been there a good many years, so they felt pretty much at 

home, and the Secret Service did not build anything. They made a 

temporary installation and I believe, to tell you the truth, tha t I am 

the one th at had to pay for it, of an extra telephone line there, so that 

we could put a telephone in the front bedroom where Mr. Johnson 

and Mrs. Johnson were spending the night. And tha t is the only 

installation we put in and I put in some outside plugs so tha t we could 

hook up the microphone when I had him talk.

I had a few people drop by to visit—about 1,500—and tha t was the 

only installation. But tha t type of temporary installation could be 

made there by the Secret Service, and they could have paid for it. 

They did not. But they were nice, and they did not hurt the barn any. 

It was built in 1865, and there was not much t hat they could do to 

tha t barn.

Mr. Lott. A fter you put them in the bam, you felt like the temporary arrangements were satisfactory ?

Mr. Brooks. That is right, and they did not object to it. But they 

could do this, and if they had put in some temporary operations, whatever they would be, certainly they could do that, if President Ford 

decides to come down and visit in Mississippi.

Mr. Lott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Donohue. Mr. Thornton.

Mr. Thornton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to ask if the inten t of the legislation is to make 

sure that the Secret Service does have the capability to provide needed 

security at whatever place the President and Vice President or other 

protected persons may be at any time ?

Mr. Brooks. They have that authority . I f I understand the question, 

Mr. Thornton, the Secret Service has the full authority and responsibility to protect the President and the Vice President and his family
21

anyw here they go at an y tim e, and th is would give them the full 

au th or ity to continue to do th at . It would give the m all of the au thor ity 

fo r ma kin g perm anent impro vem ents and have it funded thro ug h 

th ei r agency r at he r tha n th ro ug h t he GSA , or thro ug h the D ep artm en t 

of Defense, or the Dep artm en t of Tra ns po rtat io n, or whoever the y 

have p ick ing up the tab.

Basically, th ei r au th or ity wou ld rem ain th e same. Th is wou ld rea lly 

ju st give the m a lit tle more au thor ity th an they have now. I t would 

give them the added au th or ity to mak e expenditu res an d to fu nd expe nd itu res fo r impro vem ent s of the pr op erty th at they believe are 

justified f or p rotec tiv e purposes.

Mr. Tiiorxton. As a m atter of dra ft in g, the. possibility of desig ­

na tin g a pa rtic ul ar place fo r each person who is elig ible fo r protection, would t hat includ e a desig natio n by the P resid en t, an othe r place 

by perhap s th e P re side nt ’s wife or ot he r memb ers o f his fa mily , or does 

th at re lat e to a fa mily un it ?

Mr. Brooks. It would con tem pla te the family un it, as we discusse d 

wi th the othe r mem bers who are aware of this same prob lem. I th in k 

th at in the repo rt we could mak e very cle ar th at t his means one fa m ­

ily .-Thi s does no t mea n—w ell, you know, wh at if the y ha d picked 

some Demo crat like Bob Casey with 12 child ren , we would no t wa nt 

to imp rove each one of thes e 12 perm anent residences an d we are not 

conte mpla tin g th at .

But, I do not t hi nk we wou ld wa nt to pu t it in the bill, but we could 

pu t it in the rep or t to cl ar ify th at . An d it wou ld pro bably be ade quate, 

and tha t would be my su ggestion and my hope.

Mr. Thornton. I f I may offer a c omm ent, whi ch I believe th at you 

wou ld agree with, certa inly I wou ld like to voice a concern th at n ot hing in t his b ill be construed in a ny wav as to li mi t the capacit y o r cap abi lity of the Secre t Ser vice to provide all need ed prote ction to the 

people who are to be prote cte d by the act, but ra th er th at th is is to 

elimi nate the possi bility of impro vem ent s being mad e whi ch hav e a 

rea l and tan gible value ap ar t from the pro tec tiv e functio n whi ch are 

then le ft to the per son when the prote cti on is no lon ger ava ilable . Is 

th at c or re ct ?

Mr. Brooks. That is absolute ly correct. The Sec ret Service au th or ­

ity is n ot jeopardize d by th is in a ny m anner, shape or form . It is o nly 

imp roved. Th ey ju st hav e the au thor ity to bu ild wh at the y th in k is 

necessary to adequately prote ct ou r Presiden ts and Vice Presi dents .

Mr. T hornton. For leg islati ve histo ry, is there any lim ita tio n on 

the use of gover nm ent al pr op erty or resources, pr ov iding tran sp ortatio n, allow ing the Pr es iden t t rav el by n ava l ship, if he de sires to do so?

Mr. Brooks. There is no lim ita tio n in this on tra vel pro ced ures, o r on 

the utilizatio n of Govern me nt prop erty. That is e xclu ded. I f the P re si ­

dent, as some Pr esiden ts have, wants to go to a m ili ta ry insta lla tio n, 

and t ak e th e c om ma ndant’s house, or the co mm andin g officer’s quarte rs, 

an d the y wa nte d to mak e some ad justm en ts in it, t h at would be done 

ap ar t an d separat e fro m this leg islation, because the y would be on 

Governm ent prop erty.

If the y wa nt to impro ve Camp Da vid and pu t an oth er swimming 

pool up the re, and hav e three ins tea d of ju st two, th at could be done. 

We wou ld not interfere wi th the expenditu res by the Secre t Service 

42-78 1— 74----- 4
22

or the oth er Governm ent agencies, the De partm ent of Tra ns po rtation. Defense, any of them , on Government prop ert y. I his is only on 

non-Go vem ment prop ert y th at th is applies.

Mr. T hornton. I have no fu rther questions. I yield back the balance 

of my time.

Mr. Donohue. Mr. B utler.

Mr. Hit le r. Mr. Ch airma n, several thing s have occurre d to me as 

we have gone along here. I am concerned I think . Mr. Brooks, about 

the specific situ ation. As I view section 2, it is a lim ita tio n on what 

oth er agencies, that is section 2, sub pa ragraph 1. what other agencies 

can do in term s of pro vid ing tem porary assistance to the Secret Se rvice withou t reim bursement. Am I correct in t ha t ?

Mr. Brooks. Basically; yes.

Mr. Butler. All rig ht now, the Presi dent of the Un ite d State s has 

a condom inium at Vale, Colo.

Mr. Brooks. Correct.

Mr. Butler. Now. my guess would be th at his son would tak e it for 

2 weeks, or so, and maybe the Presi dent him self anoth er 2 weeks, and 

oth er children oth er 2 weeks, all of whom are entitled to protection . 

Is this legislation so writte n that the Secret Service could not get assista nce in providing thi s pro tection from any other agencies except 

for 2 weeks out of th e season or the y ear?

Mr. Brooks. No; I would not think so. He owns it perm anently, and 

he may go the re m ore often than 2 weeks.

Mr. Butler. Y es; but if he does not choose to des ignate thi s as his 

permanent residence.

Mr. Brooks. If he design ated th is.b e could-----

Mr. Butler. Let us assume th at he does n ot.

Mr. Brooks. He does not?

Mr. Butt.er. Let us assume he does not. Are we not lim iting what 

would be almost rou tine wit hout thi s legisla tion th e kind of pro tection 

th at would be pro vided, or maybe I do not un derst and the problem.

Mr. Brooks. I do not th ink so. I thi nk witho ut any question the y 

woidd go out there and take a look a t that facil ity , a nd he is not going 

to designa te it as his p erm anent residence------

Mr. Butler. I would think not, would be my guess.

Mr. Brooks. It is going to be a vacation residence^ so we are not 

goi ng to ma intain th at one an d do a lot of wo rk. Bu t, they will do ot her 

thing s on a tem porar y basis, anything they need fo r any protecte e, 

which mean s that they mig ht ren t an adjace nt ap artm en t or one above 

it or below it from which the y can observe it, or the y might pu t in 

some sensor equipment or whatever on a tem po rar y basis. They are 

not lim ited at all. The only lim ita tio n is on perm anent o peratio ns. So, 

I do not think that th ey would have a ny problems.

Mr. Butler. Well, what is this referenc e in the b ill to a tem porar y 

basis for a period not to exceed 2 weeks, what does th at mean? I 

thou gh t th at meant if they were going to be there longer th an 2 weeks, 

or when the 2 weeks ran out. the G SA would have to go home, and the 

Secret Serv ice would be on its own. Is th at a fa ir s tatem ent?

Mr. Brooks. I think per tri p th at would be adeq uate. You m ay wa nt 

to conside r prov idi ng for more th an 2 weeks pe r year.
23

Mr. Butler. You see, but it is my understanding-----

Mr. Brooks. If the P resid ent went out there and spent a month-----

Air. Butler. Right.

Air. Brooks. Which he would not do.

Air. B utler. But he might during the course of a summer accumulate more th an 14 days.

Air. Brooks. Yes; the time period should be permitted to run again. 

Perhaps, we should extend the limit beyond 2 weeks.

Air. B utler. That is the one thing tha t I wanted to understand on 

the 2 weeks. T hank you.

Now, one other question tha t concerns me. In the process of making 

security improvements to a residence, they also probably would have 

to remove portions of a building, or remove other facilities. For example, you might have to tear up the swimming pool to put in a barn 

to house the Secret Service or whatever you do for them in other 

places.

Is there any provision, or is there any policy at the moment, to 

reimburse for the damage they do to the present home when they 

make the improvements in the first instance, or is there any provision in the legislation for crediting against the f air market value when 

you get ready to sell ?

Air. Brooks. There is not. To my certain knowledge, some of the 

improvements made at the Johnson ranch were not really what he 

or Lady Bird wanted. But they let it go, and they did not get any compensation for it at all.

On Air. Nixon's property at Key Biscayne, when they destroyed 

one shuflleboard, they built a better one. When they replaced water 

lines and tore up the old water lines, which served a part of the house 

at San Clemente, they laid brand new ones that were 100 percent 

better. I do not think anybody has felt or has ever been able to establish a net loss from the improvements.

I would thin k tha t if they had to move a swimming pool, they 

would build a bette r one, I will guarantee you, Air. Butler. The Secret 

Service is not mean. They are pretty kindly people when they look 

after folks, and they not only want to protect them, but they want 

them to live well and comfortably. They are kindly and thou ghtf ul 

folks, despite the fact that they carry pistols.

Air. Butler. I am just concerned tha t we might inhibit those natural Christian virtues of the Secret Service by this legislation.

Mr. Brooks. I think it would be difficult to inhibit their kindly 

attitude about spending money.

Air. Butler. I yield back.

Air. Donohue. Are there any further questions?

Air. Danielson. I have one.

Air. Donohue. Air. Danielson.

Air. Danielson. Thank you, Air. Chairman.

On page 2, line 14, and page 3, line 7, of the bill, you refer to any 

other property not in Government ownership or control. Wha t would 

be included within the definition “or control” ?

Air. Brooks. Government ownership or control would be a Government lease on a property, if the Government had leased a big pro perty, or if the Government controlled anything. Any thing that they 

control.
24

Mr. Danielson. Does any other example come to your mind—I am 

not saying there arc not any, hut I am trying to envision one.

Mr. Brooks. No, I do not have an example of tha t at this tim e; 

no, I do not.

Mr. Danielson. For example, if the Government leased Camp 

David—a long-term lease up there?

Mr. Brooks. Tha t is right.

Mr. Danielson. I see, 1 am not aware of any other ease.

Mr. Brooks. I am not, offhand, but we may have some, and the 

President is entitled and the Vice President to go up and use them, 

any of them, and we would be delighted to have him do it.

Sir. Danielson. But the situation where President Johnson visited 

Rancho Brooks years ago; he was there and it wasn’t property under 

Government control, I gather?

Mr. Brooks. I t surely was not. It was mine and still is.

Mr. Danielson. And you do not contemplate-----

Mr. Brooks. And he gave me a little cushion that said, “This is my 

ranch and I do as I damn please.” lie gave it to me, and I still have 

it, bless his heart.

Mr. Danielson. B ut I want to be sure then we are not including 

property tha t is temporarily under Government control, but only such 

a thing as might have the dignity of a leasehold, something of tha t 

nature ?

Mr. Brooks. T hat is right.

Mr. Danielson. I have no other questions.

Mr. Donohue. If there are no fu rther questions of Mr. Brooks, we 

will excuse him.

Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Donohue. And we wrant to express our appreciation for the 

benefit of your views and knowledge about this bill.

[The prepared statement by Hon. Harold I). Donohue follows:]

Statement of Hon. Harold D. Donohue

I am one of the sponsors of the bill II.R. 11499 and served as a member of the 

Government Activities Subcommittee of the Government Operations Committee 

which conducted an extensive Investigation. The bill II.R. 1145)9 was introduced 

as the result of the information gained through the investigation conducted by 

tha t subcommittee. I fully support the bill with the amendments suggested by the 

Honorable Jack Brooks.

I feel that the report of the Government Activities Subcommittee submitted to 

the House and printed as H. Rept. No. 93-1052 of the current Congress demonstra tes the need for explicit limitations and requirements which will govern the 

implementation of the Secret Service in its protection functions as provided in 

this bill.

Basically, the bill IT.R. 11499 provides tha t Federal Departments and agencies 

are to assist the Secret Service in their protective functions under the above 

provisions by providing personnel, equipment or facilities subject to reimbursement by the Secret Service. Upon written request by the Director of the Secret 

Service and subject to reimbursement, such Departments and Agencies are to 

provide facilities, equipment and services of a permanent nature at a single 

property not in Government ownership as designated by an individual entitled 

to such protection. Protective facilities at an additionally designated property 

would be permitted but limited to $5,000 unless approved by the Committees on 

Appropriations.

Additional provisions of the bill require adherence to the Federal Property 

and Administrative Services Act and require that payments for services, equipment or facilities would only be authorized for procurements by federal employees authorized by the Director of the Secret Service.
The bill specifies tha t all improvements are to remain Government property and 

the owner would he requ ired to pay for any improvements upon termin atio n of 

protection since they increased the value of the property. In the intere st of fa irness, the subcommittee may wish to consider an additio nal amendment giving the 

owner the option of having any such improvements removed and the prop erty restored.

The bill provides for effective oversight by providing for periodic reports tothe Congress and I would suggest th at consideration be given to the inclusion of 

an additional provision for audits and rights of access by th e General Accounting 

Office with the requirem ent that reports of any such audits be made to the Committee on Government Operations.

M r. D on oh ue. W e will now he ar from th e ge nt le m an re pre se nt in g 

th e Gen eral Se rvices A dm in is tr at io n.

TESTIMONY OF JOHN F. GALUARDI, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; ACCOMPANIED BY BOB RICE, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL AND MARC

HIMM ELSTEIN, CONGRESSIONAL LIAISON OFFICE

Air. Galuardi. Mr. Chairman, I am John Galuardi, the Deputy 

Commissioner for Public Buildings Service of the General Services 

Administration.

With me today I have Robert Rice, our Counsel, and Marc Himmelstein from our Congressional Liaison Office.

We have furnished for the committee a le tter expressing our views 

on this legislation—the views of the GSA at this particular point, 

and the administration.

Mr. Donoiiue. Is that the letter dated August 21?

Mr. Galuardi. Yes, sir. And it is not the view of the administration as of yet, but the views of the GSA, and we would be pleased to 

answer any questions th at the committee has.

Mr. Donohue. WThy don’t you proceed and read tha t letter?

ATr. Galuardi. I do not have an exact copy.

Mr. Donohue. Do you have extra copies of it?
26

Mr. Galuardi. I do not have e xtra copies of it. I have a dra ft , and 

I am not sure it is the same one th at you have there.

Mr. Donohue. I n view of th at fact, I think it would be a good idea 

if you proceeded and read the letter.

Mr. Galuardi. Yes, sir.

Dear Mr. Chairm an: This is in reply to your lette r of Jan uary 28, 1974, requesting an expression of the views of tlie General Services Adm inistratio n on 

II.It. 114!M). a bill “To estab lish procedures and regulations for certain protective services provided by the United States Secret Service.”

The hill would repeal section 2 of the Act of Jun e 6, 1968 (Public Law 90-331; 

82 Stat. 170) which requires all Federal agencies to assist the Secret Service in 

the performance of its protective duties under section 3056 of title 18 of the 

United States Code. Ins ofa r ns we are aware, section 2 has not been inte rpreted 

to require the Secret Service to reimburse or tra nsfer to agencies the cost of 

rendering such assistance. II.It. 11499, if enacted, would continue to perm it other 

Federal agencies to assist the Secret Service but, except in temporary assistance, 

only upon reimbursement of actu al costs.

In addition to the above, tlie bill proposes with one exception to limit th e Secret 

Service to providing full security at Government expense at no more tha n one 

property not in Government control as may be designated by the person entitled 

to the protection. The exception stated in paragraph (3) of section 2 a pparently 

is intended to limit expe nditures on other priv ate property to an amount which 

cumulatively does not exceed $5,000.

The primary responsibility for the protection of the Presiden t and others designated by law as requ iring personal protection rests with the Secret Service. It 

has long been recognized, however, that the proper fulfillment of such responsibilities often requires the support and cooperation of other Federal agencies. The 

purpose of Public Law 30-331 was to eliminate any doubt as to the legal basis 

for such assistance and to assure that the Secret Service would be dominant in 

directing all protective functions.

GSA has no objection to assisting the Secret Service on a reimbursable basis 

as H.lt. 11499 provides, but in view of the above de fers to the Secret Service and 

to the Congress as to w hether the bill is the proper vehicle for accomplishing this 

objective, and as to the merits of other provisions of the bill which relate directly 

to the protective functions of the Secret Service.

However, to be as helpful as possible to the Committee, we offer the following 

suggestions for amendments which we believe, if adopted, would improve the bill.

Paragraph s (2) and (3) in section 2 provide th at security at full Government 

exjiense be on priv ate property at no more than one location designated by the 

person to be prote cte d; and with respect to other locations involving private 

projierty the Government’s obligation would lx* limited to $5,000. However, the 

$5,000 limitatio n appears to apply only to reimbursable work and not to work pe rformed by contract. If paragraph (3) is to remain in the bill, we recommend that 

it be clarified in this report.

Since purchase and contracts for the protection functions of the Secret Service 

are alrea dy subject to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 

1949, as amended, we suggest that section 4 be deleted as unnecessary. Section 5 

also is unnecessary as we do not believe that existing law permits a Federal official to delegate his contracting authority to one who is not a Federal employee.

We suggest that section 6 either be deleted or alternatively be amended to 

reflect the current law' with respect to disposal of improvements and other items 

acquired for security purposes. Section 6 as presently drafted infers that such 

property shall remain the property of the Federal government under circum ­

stances where removal is economically unfeasible which we do not believe is intended. The section also does not provide for restoration of property to the condition which existed prior to making of the improvement when and if the improvement is removed.

In a memorandum of November 21, 1973, prep ared within the Departm ent of 

Justice, concerning title to improvements made on private property for security 

purposes, it was concluded t ha t if items placed on the property were removed, th e 

Federal government is under a duty to return the premises to the owner in as 

good a condition as when the alteration s were made. Accordingly, we recommend that upon term ination of the responsibility to secure the property, or if 

such property is determined no longer needed for security purposes, the bill pro-
27

vide tha t the property be disposed of or transferred to another tede ral agency 

in accordance with the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of

1949, as amended. . .

Finally, we recommend that paragraph 8 be amended to require tha t fed eral 

agencies submit reports only on non-reimbursable expenditures. With respect 

to reimbursable expenditures, the Secret Service will have complete and detailed 

information making it unnecessary for other agencies to submit reports thereon.

Mr. Donoiiue. Mr. Butler?

Mr. Butler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am still tryi ng to digest exactly just what we have been told here. 

The relationship in the event of severance between the property owner 

and the protectee in the Federal Government, is it my understanding 

from what you say here tha t this is already spelled out in a memorandum of the Justice Department dated November 21,1973?

Mr. Galuardi. Yes, sir.

Mr. Butler. Is that memorandum a regulation ?

Mr. Galuardi. I t was in response to an inquiry which we made of 

the Department of Justice to clarify this position for the agency.

Mr. Butler. So it has been the policy of your agency to proceed on 

the basis of that memorandum ?

Mr. Galuardi. Yes, sir.

Mr. Butler. Well, I think that clears up several points. Is tha t 

memorandum of general public record, or is it published in the 

Register ?

Mr. Galuardi. Mr. Rice will answer.

Mr. Rice. Mr. Butler, it is not published. It is an internal memorandum written to the A ssistant Attorney General in charge of the Lands 

Division within the Department of Justice. It is not a departmental 

position as such, but it has been used by us as guidance.

Mr. Butler. Well, I have two requests. I would appreciate it, one, 

if you would provide us with a copy of that memorandum.

Mr. Rice. We can certainly do that.

Mr. B utler. And secondly, I would appreciate it if you would take 

a moment and consider whether you think it appropriate that the 

substance of the memorandum be placed in the statutes, or if you th ink 

tha t the law is sufficiently clear without further clarification in the 

statute.

Mr. Galuardi. We will consider that.

Mr. Donohue. You desire tha t to be made a pa rt of the record? 

Mr. Butler. Yes. Tha t is my request.

Mi. Donohue. It will be so ordered when it is furnished.

Mr. Danielson. Will the gentleman yield for a moment? 

rmr A\

UT LE R- I yield back my time, and you can have it.

L Ihe document refe rred to follows:]

A XVI XLX’l

Memo ran dum Aovewfter 21, 1913.

T o : ^ U

7cesaDh-M„n.Ol

‘

nSO n

- 

AS8*

S ta il t A tt o rn ^ Natural

From : Anthony C. Liotta, Chief, Land Acquisition Section

Subject: Status of title to property placed bv thp flpnpn i • . . tlon on the private property o f P r e s i d e n t , T ' " 8 A d m l n l s t I'aClemente for the protection of the Preside , nn,l and San

istrative support for the Presideut and his staff and rente d m U M s" "” 11"
28

The Honorable Andrew J. Ilinshaw, the Representative of the 39th District 

of California, by letter of September 26, 1973, submitted eight questions to the 

Administrator of General Services Administration concerning the legal sta tus of 

adm inistrative support for the President and his staff at the Western White 

House, San Clemente, California, and at Key Biscayne, Florida. Mr. Sampson, 

the Administrator of General Services, answered the eight questions in an undated letter, which, together with Mr. Ilinshaw's letter, was submitted to this 

Departmen t for its views. Those questions ns to which this Departm ent has no 

knowledge (numbers 4, 5, and G) are not considered in this memorandum. It was 

presumed tha t Mr. Sampson adequ ately answered question no. 1 and it is also 

not a subject of this memorandum. This memorandum will respond only to questions 2, 3, 7, nd 8. Those questions are as follow s:

(2) Does legal title to the items refe rred to above reside in the Federal 

Government?

(3) Does the Federal Government have the discretio nary right 'to remove 

those items listed in your report referred to above?

(7) Disregarding President Nixon’s public obligation to cooperate with governmental efforts to ensure his security and safety, do the owners of the subject 

projxTties have the right to have the items referred to removed and to have 

the projierty placed back in its original condition?

(8) Are such security and safe ty items subject to seizure and sale by p rivate 

and/or lesser governmental jurisdictions aga inst the wishes and interests of 

the Federal Government?

The answers to these questions and the reasons therefor, together with citation 

of authority, ure set out below.

QUES TI ON (2 )

By virtue of article 4, 8 3, clause 2, of the Constitution, title to the items of 

property placed on the subject real estate by the United States (through the 

agency of the General Services Adm inistration) remains vested in the United 

States until such items are disposed of in accordance with Federal law.

Article 4, § 3, clause 2, of the Constitutio n provides in pertinent pa rt that. 

“The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and 

Regulations respecting the Ter rito ry or other Property belonging to the United 

States * ♦ The courts have inte rpre ted this provision as a gra nt to the Congress of exclusive power to regulate and dispose of prop erty belonging to the 

United States and have uniformly held that subordinate officers of the United 

States are without such power, save only as it has been conferred upon them by 

Act of Congress or is to be implied from other powers so granted. E.g., Ashw ander

v. Tennessee Valiev Authority, 297 U.S. 288 (1936) ; Royal Ind emnity Co. v. United State*, 313 U.S. 289 (1941) ; United States v. Sta te of California, 332 U.S. 19 (1947) ; Utah Power and Ligh t Co. v. United States, 243 U.S. 389 (1917) ; Osborne v. United States, 145 F.2d 892 (C.A. 9, 1944) ; Reaver v. United States, 350 F.2d 4 (C.A. 9, 1965), cert, den., 383 U.S. 927; United States v. City of Columbus, 180 F. Supp. 775 (S.D. Ohio, 1959).

Thus, for example, the court in Royal Indemnity Co. v. United State s, supra, held (p. 294) :

Power to release or otherw ise dispose of the rights and prop erty of the 

United States is lodged in the Congress by the Constitution. Art. IV, 8 3, Cl. 2. 

Subordinate officers of the United States are without tha t power, save only 

ns it has l»een conferred upon them by Act of Congress or is to be implied 

from other powers so granted. TVhffej«(de v. United State s, 93 U.S. 247, 256- 

257; ffart v. United State s, 95 U.S. 316, 318; Haw kins v. United State s, 96 U.S. 689, 691; Utah Power <t Light Co. v. United States, 243 U.S. 389. 409; 

Wilber National Rank v. United States, 294 U.S. 120, 123-124; cf. United States v. Shaw, 309 U.S. 495. 501; Ri tte r v. United State s, 28 F.2d 265; United Sta tes v. Olobe Indem nity Co., 94 F.2d 576. * * ♦.

In the instant case the applicable Federal law as to disposition of the property 

is the Federal Prop erty and Administrative Services Act of 1949 ( 63 Stat. 378), 

40 U.S.C. 8 471, et seq. For present purposes, the significant sections of the Act are 

sections 483(h) and 484(a) (40 U.S.C.), which provide as follows :

§ 488

(h) The Adm inistrator [of General Services] may authorize the abandonment, destruction, or donation to public bodies of property which has no
29

commercial value or of which the estima ted cost of continued care and 

hand ling would exceed the estim ated proceeds from its sale.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in thi s section, the Administrator shall 

have supervision and direction over the disposition of surp lus property. Such 

prop erty sha ll he disposed of to such extent, at such time, in such areas, by 

such agencies, at such terms and conditions, and in such manner, as may be 

prescribed in or pursu ant to thi s Act.

Assuming that no disposition of the property in question has been made pu rsua nt to the above-referenced Act of Congress (or other applicable Act of Congre ss), it follows th at title to the property rem ains in the United State s.

There is no Act of Congress providing th at the placement of United States 

prop erty on priv ately owned rea l est ate works a tra ns fer of title to such property 

to the landowner. With respect to prop erty of the ord inary citizen, State law 

could provide th at placement of one’s prop erty on anoth er’s real estat e works 

such a tra nsfer of title, but such a law could not affect the title to property of 

tiie United State s. This is so because, as discussed above, only the Congress of 

the United States has the power to regulate or dispose of prop erty belonging to 

the United States. This is made particularly clear in the opinion of the cou rt 

in Utah Power and Light Co. v. United Sta tes, 243 U.S. 389 (1917). Th at case 

involved the question of the rig ht of the Sta te of Utah to occupy land owned 

by the United Sta tes withou t the United States permission. The lower court had 

ruled th at th e Sta te had no such rig ht and on appea l the Suprem e Court affirmed. 

The Supreme Court’s decision was grounded on article 4, § 3, clause 2, of the 

Constitution, which applies to personal as well as real prop erty of the United 

State s. While the subject of the opinion is land , the opinion is applicable as well 

to personal property. The pertinent language of the Cou rt’s opinion is the following (pp. 403^405):

The first position taken by the defendants is th at the ir claims must be 

tested by the laws of the Sta te in which the lands are situa te ra th er than 

by the legislation of Congress, and in support of this position they say th at 

lands of the United Sta tes within a State, when not used or needed for a 

fort or other gove rnmental purpose of the United States, are subject to the 

jurisdic tion, powers and laws of the Sta te in the same way and to the same 

extent as are sim ilar lands of others. To this we cann ot asse nt. Not only 

does the Constitu tion (Art. IV, § 3, cl. 2) comm it to Congress the power “to 

dispose of and make all needful rules and regulation s respectin g” the lands 

of the United States, but the settl ed course of legislation, congressional and 

state, and repeated decisions of this court have gone upon the theory th at 

the power of Congress is exclusive and th at only thro ugh its exercise in 

some form can rights in lands belonging to the United States be acquired. 

True, for many purposes a State has civil and crim inal jurisdiction over 

lands within its limits belonging to the United States, but this jurisdiction 

does not exten d to any matter th at is not consistent with full power in the 

United States to protect its lands, to control their use and to prescribe in 

what manner others may req uire rights in them. Thus while the Sta te may 

punish public offenses, such as murder or larce ny, committed on such lands, 

and may tax private property, such as livestock, located thereon, it may 

not tax the lands themselves or invest others with any right whatever in 

them. [Citations om itted.] From th e earliest times Congress by its legislation, 

applicable alik e in the Sta tes and Ter rito ries, has regulated in many pa rticulars the use by others of the land s of the United States, has prohibited 

and made punishable various acts calculated to be inju rious to them or to 

prevent their use in the way intended, and has provided for and controlled 

the acqu isitio n of rights of way over them for highw ays, railroads, canals, 

ditches, telegraph lines and the like. The Sta tes and the public have alm ost 

uniformly accepted this legislation as controlling, and in the in stances where 

it has been questioned in this cou rt its validity has been upheld and its 

supremacy over state enactments sustained. [Citati ons omitted.] And so we 

are of opinion th at the inclusion within a State of lands of the United Sta tes 

does not take from Congress the power to control their occupancy and use, 

to protect them from trespa ss and injury and to prescribe the conditions 

upon which others may obtain rig hts in them, even though this may involve 

the exercise in some measure of w hat commonly is know’n as th e police power.

42-781—74----- 3
30

“A different rule,” as was said in Camfleld v. I nited States, supra, would place the public domain of the United States completely at the mercy of

state legislation.” , .. It results tha t state laws, including those relating to the exercise of the

power of eminent domain, have no hearing upon a controversy such as is here 

presented save as they may have been adopted or made applicable by

The State of California has enacted legislation dealing with the passage of 

title when a person affixes his property to the land of a nother without an agreement permitting him to remove it. Assuming that the United States property in 

question was affixed to the Preside nt’s land without any agreement as to removal 

rights, the California law would, on its surface, indicate tha t title to such property passed as a matter of law to the President. But as the law has been construed 

by ‘the California courts, it seems clear tha t title to the property would not pass 

from the United States, so that no contlict between California law and the United 

States Constitution arises. The law in question is the California Civil Code, 

Sections (MW>, 1013, and 1013.5, set out below in pertine nt pa rt :

§ 660. Fixtures defined

A thing is deemed to be affixed to land when it is atta ched to it by roots, 

as in the case of trees, vines, or shrubs; or imbedded in it, as in the case of 

walls; or permanently resting upon it, as in the case of buildings; or permanently attached to what is thus permanent, as by means of cement, plaster, 

nails, bolts, or screws; * * * . [Enacted 1872. As amended Stats. 1031, c. 1070, 

p. 2250, § 5.]

§ 1013. Fix tures; affixing w itho ut agreement to remove,

When a person affixed his property to the land of another, without an 

agreement permitting him to remove it, the thing affixed, except as otherwise 

provided in this chapter, belongs to the owner of the land, unless he chooses 

to require the former to remove it or the former elects to exercise the right 

of removal provided for in Section 1013.5 of this chap ter. (Enacted 1872. 

As amended Code Am. 1873-74, c. G12, p. 224, § 128; Stats. 1953, c. 1175, p. 2074, § 1.)

§ 1013.5. Fixtures; removal

(a) Right of removal; payment of damages. When any person, actin g in 

good faith and erroneously believing because of a mistake eith er of law or 

fact that he has a right to do so, affixes improvements to the land of another, 

such person, or his successor in interest, shall have the right to remove such 

improvements upon payment, as the ir interests shall appear, to the owner 

of the land, and any other person having any inte rest therein who acquired 

such interest for value af ter the commencement of the work of improvement and in reliance thereon, of all their damages proximately resulting from 

the nffixing and removal of such improvements.

The courts’ treatment of disputes aris ing under these provisions is well illustrated in the following excerpt from Improving the Lot of the Trespassing Im ­

prover. John Henry Merryman, 11 Stanford L. Rev. 450, 481 (1959) :

The divided ownership cases, involving annexation by tenants, licensees, 

trespassers and conditional vendors, an* of an entirely different nature. In 

these the problem becomes one of deciding whether the owner of a chattel 

by attachin g it, or allowing it to be attached, to the land of another, thereby 

loses his ownership. Use of the maxim [“guiguid plantatu r solo. solo eed it”—

“what is attached to the land becomes pa rt of it” l in these cases leads to loss 

of ownersldp by the mere fact of annexation, rathe r than merely to supplying 

a presumed intention when the parties have failed to express one, as in the 

common (iwnership cases. The unsuitability of the annexation test in divided 

ownership cases is amply demonstrated by the fact tha t, except as to had 

fait h trespassers, it is qualified by sta tut e and decision in California. Tenants, 

licensees, good faith trespassers and conditional vendors are all allowed to 

remove their anne xatio ns to the land of another. Thus the annexation test 

is almost entirely excepted away in the divided ownership cases. [Footnotes omitted.]

< file status of the I nited States, having placed the property in question on the 

I resident s real estate with his permission or acquiescence, is that of a licensee.)

co'o ^ . 

tn R r m o v e Fixtu res from Real Fropcrtg, Note, 27 So. Cal. L. Rev. 89. 90, the au tho r observes t h a t:
31

* * * Where a lice nsee ann exed ch at te ls to the land of an othe r, many 

Ca lifornia co ur ts hac ked aw ay from the indisc rim inate use o f section 1013 by 

implyin g, from the relatio nship of th e pa rti es, the nec ess ary agreem en t allowing the licensee to remove the “fix ture.” I Fo otn ote omitted.]

Under the new fix tur es rule [§ 1013.5], co ur ts may ju st as easily gr an t a 

licensee the righ t to rem ove the ch attel, fo r it will be sim ple to show a 

mist ak e in law or fa ct in th at the lice nse e affixed his ch at te ls at a tim e whe n 

his use of th e lan d wa s o f a tem po rary n atur e.

In an ar tic le which tr ea ts th is problem qu ite exten siv ely , Th e La w of F ix tu re s

in Califo rnia— A Cr itic al An aly sis , Harold W. Ho row itz, 20 So. Cal. L. Rev. 21 

(1952), the au thor , notes the dev elo pment by the co ur ts of ot he r te st s to tem per 

the ha rshn ess of the p rin cip le of S ection 1013. H e s ta te s (pp. 37-38) th a t:

♦ * * Some courts, in mo de ratin g th e ap pa re nt ap plicab ili ty of Section 

1013, h ave imp lied a consent on the par t of the land ow ne r to t he licen see to re ­

move any ch at te ls th e lice nsee may have affixed, sole ly on the basis of the 

lice nse e’s being a licensee, with perm iss ion to be on the lan d. [Foo tno te 

om itte d.] * * * .

The foo tno te referenc e in th e above excerpt is to Ta ylo r v. Hc ydenrcich , 92 Cal. App. (2d ) 684, 207 I’ac. (2d ) 599 (1949). Th e items th at th e licens ee wa s held 

en titled to rem ove includ ed a house, a cab in, two chicke n hou ses, a win dmill, and 

wa ter pip es. T he co ur t held th at (92 Cal. App. (2d ) 689) :

Wh ere st ru ct ur es ar e erected upon land by a me re licensee, conse nt on the 

part of th e owner of th e lan d th at th e stru ct ur es shall rem ain the pr op erty 

of the lice nse e will be imp lied in the absenc e of evid ence show ing a dif fer ent 

intentio n. (Gosliner v. Brioner, 187 Cal. 557, 561 [204 P. 19] ; Ci ty of Vallejo v. Bur ril l, 64 Cal. App. 399, 407 [221 P . 6 76] .) ♦ * *.

The au th or of Th e La w of Fix tu re s in Ca lifo rni a— A Cr itic al An alys is, supra,

ma kes th e follow ing su mm ary of th e law on th is topic (p. 45) :

It will be helpf ul at th is point to re stat e th e ap pa re nt tre nd of the 

Ca lifornia law in rega rd to acqu isi tio n of ow nersh ip cases, in lig ht of wha t 

th e co ur ts ha ve ac tually decided. The co urts seem to ten d to reach resu lts in 

acc ord with th is st ate m ent: If a per son , whe ther he be licens ee or be othe rwise leg ally desig nated , bring s his ch at te l on to land own ed by an ot he r 

person, th e lan do wn er will acquire ow nersh ip of the ch at te l only if (1) the 

owner of th e ch at te l int ended to tr an sf er ow nersh ip to him, as by agreem ent 

between th e pa rtie s, or (2) it will cause the lan do wn er irre pa ra bl e harm , 

not com pen sab le by money dam age s or ot he r lega l rem edies, if the owner 

of the ch at te l re ta in s ow nersh ip and rem oves it from the lan d. ♦ * *.

Eve n with ou t benefit of the pre sump tio n th at th e Un ited State s, as a mere 

licen see, did not inten d th at title to its pr op erty sho uld pass to the Presiden t, th e 

sam e resu lt is com pelled as a m at te r of law. In apply ing th e in te nt te st to th e 

United State s, whose pr op erty can only be disp ose d of by an Act of Congress, re ­

so rt mu st be ha d to th e Un ited St ates st at ute s for th e Go vernme nt's “int en t.” 

Since Con gress ha s no t au thorized vesting of title to the pr op erty in que stion in 

th e Pr es iden t upon an ne xa tio n to his prop erty, it cle arl y did no t inten d th at 

result.

Th e St ate of Fl or id a ha s no stat ut es re la ting to th is sub jec t. Fl or id a cas e law 

ha s estab lis hed a three-pr onged test to de term ine whe ther an ar ticl e affixed to 

realty becom es a part of th e re al ty and is th us own ed by th e land ow ne r: (1) an ­

ne xa tio n to th e realty, ei th er ac tu al or co ns tru ct iv e; (2) ad ap ta tio n or applica ­

tion to the use or pu rpose to which th at p art o f t he r ea lty t o which it is connected 

is ap pr op riat ed ; an d (3) int en tio n to ma ke the ar ticle a pe rm an en t accession to 

th e freeho ld. 14 Fl or id a Ju ris prud en ce , Fix tu re s § 3. Of th e th re e te sts men ­

tioned, the th ir d—th e intention of the pa rty ma kin g the an ne xa tio n—is gen ­

erally con sid ere d to be th e chief tes t. Id., § 5. Wh ile th er e ap pe ar to be no cases 

involving an ne xa tio n by a licen see, the land lord -te na nt cases, bec aus e of thei r 

ratio na le, indica te th at th e Florida co urts would pre sume th at th e Un ite d States 

did not inten d to ma ke th e pr op erty in questio n a pe rm an en t acc ession to the 

freeho ld. Th e ele me nt of int en tio n is given spe cial em phasi s in th e case of ch at ­

tel s placed on re al ty by one in possession thereo f in th e relatio n of te na nt , and it 

is the presum ption in suc h case th at th e te na nt does not inten d to enric h the 

freeho ld, bu t ma kes such ad ditio n for his own benefit. Id., § 15. Inasmuc h as the 

in te rest of a me re lice nse e in th e rea l es ta te is muc h less th an th at of a tena nt, it 

would seem th a t th e presum ption is even stro ng er t hat th er e wa s no in te nt on the 

part of a lice nse e to en ric h th e freeho ld. But even with ou t th e benefit of such a
32

presumed intent, for the reasons stated earlier in the discussion of California 

Law, the United States as a matter of law could not have intended to enrich the 

freehold by transferring its title to the freeholder.

It would appear from the foregoing that under the law of California and 

Florida, property attached by the United States to the San Clemente and Key 

Biscayne properties would, under the circumstances, remain the property of the 

United States. This conclusion comports with what the text-writers find to be 

the law generally. For example, 35 Am.Jur.2d, Fixtures § 80, states the law as follows:

As a general proposition, a building erected by one under a license or with 

the express consent of the landowner does not become a fixture but remains 

the personal proi>erty of the annexer. [Footnote citing numerous cases 

omitted.] * * ♦ And in the absence of any other facts or circumstances 

tending to show a different intention, it is generally considered that where 

the landowner consents to the placing of a building on his land by another 

without an express agreement as to whether it shall become a par t of the 

realty or remain personalty, an agreement will be implied that such building 

is to continue personal property. [Footnotes citing numerous cases 

omitted.] ♦ * *.

To the same effect is the rule as stated in 41 Am.Jur.2d, Improvements § 3: * * * And it seems that where the erections are made with the permission 

or license of the owner, by one having no estate in the land and hence no 

interest in enhancing its value, an agreement th at the stru cture s shall remain 

the property of the person making them will be implied, in the absence of 

any other facts or circumstances tending to show a different intention. 

[Footnote omitted.] * * *.

But even if the applicable state law were contrary to our assessment of it, so 

tha t its proper interpretation would compel divestiture of the United States 

property, that law would be in direct conflict with the United States Constitution 

and the former must yield to the latte r.

QUESTION (3 )

The answer to this question is yes, the Federal Government does have the 

discretionary right to remove the property in question. The reason is clea r: 

unless the property has been abandoned or transferred to the President pursuant 

to law, and it is assumed tha t such is not the case, the property remains the 

property of the United States and is subject to its disposal.

QUESTION (7 )

The answer here is that the Government is under a duty to return the premises 

to the owner in as good a condition as when the annexations were made. This 

obligation arises from an implied covenant against waste. United States v. Bostwick, 94 U.S. 53, 66-68 (1876), and see United States v. Jordan, 186 F.2d 803, 806 (C.A. 6, 1951), aff’d 342 U.S. 911 (1952). When this covenant, is breached, 

Ihe breaching party is liable for the cost of restoration. See United States v. Flood Buildiny, 157 F.Supp. 438, 442 (N.D. Cal., 1957) and cases cited therein. 

For such a breach of covenant the United States would be liable to suit under 

the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346 and 1491. But while the Government would be 

liable to suit for damages, because it has waived its immunity thereto by the 

Tucker Act, it could not be compelled to actually restore the premises because 

its sovereign immunity has not been waived to tha t type of judicial relief.

QUESTION (8)

The answer to this question is no, the property in question is not subject to 

seizure and sale by private and/or lesser governmental jurisdictions. This follows 

from the status of the property as property of the United States and the doctrine 

of sovereign immunity.

It is fundamental that the United States of America, as sovereign, is immune 

from suit unless it specifically consents thereto. E.g., United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (1941) ; United States v. Shaw, 309 U.S. 495 (1940) ; Stanley v. Schwalby, 162 U.S. 255 (1896).

“A proceeding against property in which the United States has an interest is 

a suit against the United States.” United S tates v. Alabama, 313 U.S. 274, 282 (1940). Accord: Minnesota v. United States, 305 U.S. 382, 386-387 (1939); Maricopa County v. Valley National Bank, 318 U.S. 357, 362 (1943).
33

United States v. Alabama, supra, involved proceedings in a county court for the 

sale of lands owned by the United S tates for failure to pay taxes. The court held 

(p. 282) tha t:

* * * The United States was an indispensable par ty to proceedings for the 

sale of the lands, and in the absence of its consent to the prosecution of such 

proceedings, the county court was without jurisdiction and its decrees, the 

tax sales and the certificates of purchase issued to the State were void. * * *. 

The Congress has enacted no statute consenting to the seizure and sale of 

United States property.

The rule has been stated in 33 C.J.S. Executions, § 35, p. 164, as follows:

It is considered general doctrine needing no statu tory sanction tha t the 

land and property of the state or its agencies or political subdivisions is not 

subject to seizure under general execution in the absence of statute expressly granting such right, * * * and it has been said tha t as a matter of 

public policy, general statu tory provisions making property subject to execution are construed to apply only to the property of private persons and 

corporations, and not to that of public corporations or bodies politic.

The rule is similarly stated in 30 Am. Jur. 2d, Executions, § 39; 54 Am. Jur., United States § 140.

Mr. Donohue. Mr. Danielson.

Mr. Danielson. Thank you. I would like to request in addition 

that the copy of th is memorandum be supplied to each member of the 

subcommittee. At the time tha t it is entered in the record, it will be 

too late for me to consider it in connection with the bill.

Mr. Rice. Ilow many copies

Mr. Donoiiue. Would you furnish such copies so tha t each member 

may have one in his possession?

Mr. Rice. Certainly.

Mr. Danielson. I would also greatly appreciate it if the witness 

would supply each of us, or staff could supply each of us, with a copy 

of his oral statement, so that we will not have to wait until the committee report comes out before we can consider the material.

Mr. Donoiiue. Do you have in mind the statement tha t he just 

read ?

Mr. Danielson. Yes; the statement he just read. I t would be helpful 

to me. I heard it, but I do not have tha t retentive a mind.

Mr. Donoiiue. I think the staff can make up copies of it.

Mr. Danielson. Fine.

Mr. Donohue. We have the original here.

Mr. Danielson. I have no questions. I just simply had those requests which I feel would be of assistance in our consideration of 

this bill.

Mr. Donohue. Mr. Froehlich?

Mr. Froehlich. No questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Donoiiue. Mr. Thornton?

Mr. Thornton. No questions. Thank you.

Mr. Donoiiue. Well, thank you very much.

We will now hear from the gentleman representing the General 

Accounting Office.

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT KELLER, DEPUTY COMPTROLLER GENERAL,

GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE; ACCOMPANIED BY IRVINE

CRAWFORD, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, GENERAL GOVERNMENT

DIVISION

Mr. K eller. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. First I 

would like to introduce my associate, Mr. Irvine Crawford, who is the
34

Associate Director of our General Government Division and prepared 

our report on Key Biscayne and San Clemente.

We are very glad to appear here this morning to give you our views 

on ILK. 11499, a bill, which if enacted, would be cited as the Presidential Protection Act.

ILK. 11499 would spell out more precisely than is now the case 

the circumstances under which protection may be furnished to the 

President and other persons entitled to protection under 18 U.S.C. 

3056. particularly with respect to security expenditures on property 

which is not owned by the Government. It would also revise the manner in which protective work on private property by the Federal departments and agencies is funded.

ILK. 11499 is, of course, an outgrowth of the controversy over expenditures at President Nixon's residences at San Clemente and Key 

Biscayne, and to a lesser extent, at other locations. As the controversy grew, GAO began to receive letters from Members of Congress, 

some asking for information, and others calling for an investigation. 

These letters expressed a common concern about the magnitude of the 

total reported expenditures and, with respect to specific expenditures, 

questioned whether the work performed:

Kelated to the protection of the President;

Provided a nonprotective benefit to the President.

Many letters also expressed an interest in expenditures made at the 

residences of past Presidents.

In response, GAO made a review of the expenditures for protective 

purposes at Key Biscayne and San Clemente, noting expenditures 

for other purposes when appropriate. GAO also gathered inform ation on expenditures on the residences of several past Presidents.

Our findings were included in a report to the Congress dated December 18,1973, entitled “Protection of the President at Kev Biscayne 

and San Clemente (With Information on Protection of Past Presidents).” We had testified earlier before the Subcommittee on Government Activities of the House Government Operations Committee 

regarding expenditures for the protection of past Presidents at their 

private residences. We note that the subcommittee has also issued a 

report on the subject.

Although the review and report made by the Comptroller General 

were intended to answer the primary questions being asked about the 

protective measures at Key Biscayne and San Clemente, we took the 

occasion to also review the experiences of 1968-73 in terms of 

budgeting, accounting, and auditing with a view to identifying what 

had been done or still needed to be done to strengthen control by the 

Congress and promote understanding by the public. We think tha t 

the observations we made will be useful to the committee as it considers the need for better controls over expenditures for protection.

We observed tha t afte r the enactment of Public Law 90-331 of 

June 6, 1968. the Secret Service began to draw heavily on GSA appropriations in order to carry out Secret Service protective functions. 

This arrangement, we think, has the following weaknesses:

GSA funds are not directlv associated with Secret Service protection activities during the budget preparations and review process.
35

A casual attitude in authorizing work is fostered. Because many 

requests were verbal, who made requests or precisely what was requested could not readily be determined.

GSA is invited to do more than simply execute Secret Service requests, particularly when the requests are vague or general.

On the basis of the foregoing, we made several recommendations to 

the Congress. Let me discuss them briefly and relate them generally 

to H.R. 11499 where appropriate.

First, we recommended tha t appropriations for expenditures at private residences for protective purposes should be made to the Secret 

Service and no other funds should be available for that purpose. In 

this respect, changes made in the financing of GSA public buildings 

activities by the Public Buildings Act Amendments of 1972 now require tha t the Secret Service obtain appropriations and reimburse 

GSA for protective assistance beginning July 1, of this year. H.R. 

11499 also addresses this problem, providing tha t expenditures for 

securing any nongovernmentally owned property shall only be from 

funds specifically appropriated to the Secret Service (section 7), except that temporary assistance may be given by Federal departments 

and agencies without reimbursement for not exceeding 2 weeks at any 

one location in any 1 year (section 2(1)).

Second, we recommended tha t the accounting system of the Secret 

Service should require that expenditures at private residences for 

protective purposes be authorized by the Director or Deputy Director 

of the Service. II.R . 11499 provides th at advance written request of the 

Director or his authorized representative is required to obtain assistance in making secure property not in Government ownership (section 

2. (2) (3 )).

Third, we recommended that the Secret Service make an annual 

public report to the Congress showing in as much detail as security will 

allow expenditures made on private residences for protective purposes.

II.R. 11499 provides tha t every department and agency, including 

the Executive Office of the President, making expenditures under its 

provisions shall transm it a detailed report of such expenditures to the 

Committees on Appropriations and Committees on Government Operations on April 30 and September 30 of each year.

Fourth, we recommended tha t the report made by the Secret Service 

should be subject to audit by GAO and that GAO should be given complete access to all records, files, and documents supporting expenditures made by the Service.

II.R. 11499 is silent on this matter. While we have authority to pe rform such an audit under existing statutes, we believe that an express 

provision for audit might act as a deterrent on doubtful expenditures 

and would tend to preclude any withholding of access to records on 

the claim of security.

I might add at this point, Mr. Chairman, in connection with the 

work we did on Key Biscayne and San Clemente, we had full cooperation from the Secret Service and GSA in developing our report.

Fif th, we recommended that appropriations for expenditures on private residences of the President, not of a protective nature, should be 

made to the M bite House. The White House should account for such
36

exp enditure s and make an annual rep ort to the Cong ress, subject to 

audit by GA O in the same ma nner suggested for expenditures by the 

Secret S ervice fo r protective purposes.

ILK . 11499 is understandably silent on this matter, bei ng inte nded 

to amend legislation relat ing to protection . How ever, we believe th at 

con sideration sh ould be given to this r ecom mendation by the app ro pr iate comm ittees.

I migh t add , Mr. Chairma n, and members of the committee, we 

have in mind t he expend itures made on pr iva te prop erty fo r furnish ing 

offices an d ma tte rs of t hat type, which are not of a pro tective natur e, 

yet the y are expen diture s on priva te propert y, and ap prop ria tio ns 

sho uld be made to the W hit e House fo r th at pur pose and pro perly 

acco unte d for .

In addit ion , we suggested th at Congress ma y wish to conside r l im iting the numb er of priva te residences at which perma nen t protective 

facilities will be pro vided fo r a Presiden t and th at con sideration 

should be given to the desirability of a Governm ent-owned residence 

in Wa shington for the Vice Presi dent. As you know, Public Law 

93-346, enacted J ul y 12,1974, des ignated the premises occupied bv the 

Ch ief of Naval Op era tions as the official residence of the Vice 

Presi dent.

Re ga rding a lim it on the n um ber of residences at which perma nen t 

fac ilities will he provided for a Pr esiden t, our belief is th at some expres sion by Congress could avoid unnecessary con troversy in the 

futur e.

With respect to specific provisions of II.R. 11499, we offer the fo llowing comm ents:

Section 2(1) would lim it non reim bursable assistance to the Secret 

Service by Federal departm ents and agencies to “a period not to exceed 2 weeks at any one loca tion in any 1 year.” We sug ges t th at the 

bill specify whether the “1 year” means a calen dar yea r, a fiscal yea r, 

or a 12-month period. Also, it is not clear wh eth er the 2-week lim it at 

any one loca tion applies sep ara tel y to each person en titled to pro tec ­

tion un de r 18 U.S.C. 3056 or u nder the act of Ju ne 6, 1968.

Section 2(2) allows any person designated under 18 U.S .C. 3056 or 

under t he act of Ju ne 6, 1968, to desig nate one non -Go vernment prop ­

ert y to be secured by the Secret Service. Since the Pr esiden t and his 

imm edia te fam ily are all entitled to pro tection under 18 U.S.C. 3056, 

a P resid en t and his wife, could und er the bill each d esignate a separa te 

pr op erty no t in Governme nt control or ownership to be pro tected at 

pub lic expenses.

The lan guage of section 2(2) should perha ps be modified with respec t to reim bursem ent of certain costs where military equipm ent and 

men are used. Pro tection of the Presiden t may, for exam ple, involve 

the use of Coast Gu ard vessels. It would not seem necessary th at the 

Secret Serv ice be required to reim burse the Coast Gua rd for crew 

salaries and other operating expenses of its vessels.

There was some discussion a l itt le e arl ier on t his point. I am th in king pa rti cu larly of Preside nt's Nix on's residences which are on the 

water, and Coast G ua rd protection was furnis hed.

Section 6 p rovides for removal of sec urity fac ilitie s upo n term ination of protective responsibility unless remo val is “ec onom ically un-
37

feasible.” Because some security facilities can detract from the value 

of the property in the eyes of the owner, it would seem reasonable 

to make provision for removal at his request, whether such removal 

is economically feasible or not.

And here again, we go back to your earlier discussion with other 

witnesses where you have a situation where it is possible tha t the 

facility as installed could be an eye-sore and the owner would want 

it removed.

Tha t concludes my statement, Air. Chairman. I would like to add 

(hat the bill before your committee is very much in line with the 

recommendations made by the Comptroller General in his report.

I would like to mention one additional point. Under the Public 

Building Act Amendments of 1972, which I discussed a moment ago, 

each Federal agency is required to pay GSA for the cost of the space 

it uses and for other facilities that are furnished. It could be argued 

tha t this will take care of one problem, because the Secret Service now 

has to pay GSA for facilities that are installed and for work done by it.

As a word of caution this might work very well as long as the Public 

Building Act Amendments of 1972 is on the books. But, it has been 

quite controversial this year. Aly feeling it that it would be better 

to spell the requirement for Secret Service ap prop riations in the law.

We will be glad to answer any questions you have, Air. Chairman.

Air. Donohue. Air. B utler?

Air. Butler. Thank you, Air. Chairman.

1 appreciate Air. Keller’s testimony and careful review of this legislation. There are several questions which arose as you proceeded and 

1 would like to think in terms of the Coast Guard protection for a 

moment, and the 2 weeks limitation.

For example, if the President of the United States chose to go to 

the beach for a month, would the Coast Guard services under this 

legislation have to terminate at the end of 2 weeks or not ?

Air. Keller. Aly interpretation would be tha t without reimbursement it would terminate a t the end of 2 weeks. It could continue afte r 

tha t time, if the Secret Service had the funds to pay for the services.

Air. Buti .er. So this whole problem of the Coast Guard is probably 

also related to the Army protection, if it is an inland operation?

Air. Keller. Yes, I used the Coast Guard as an example, because 

both of President Nixon’s places were protected by the Coast Guard.

Air. Butler. Yes. I understand.

Now, what 1 do not have are the legislative changes you would suggest to coyer this problem. Would it be approp riate for you to suggest 

some specific changes in the language of the legislation?

Air. K eller. We will be very glad to do that. I do not have it with 

me this morning.

Air. Butler. Would you then ?

Air. Keller. I think there are a number of instances where, using 

again the example of the Coast Guard, a protective service is furnished 

tha t is a pa rt of the agencies' manual duties. Perh aps these types of 

services, if we can properly define them, should be excluded from the 

expenses tilt have to be picked up by the Secret Service.

Air. Butler. Yes, sir. I just feel like your agency is probably more 

familiar with the details tha t arise or tha t might arise under this 

42-7 81— 74------ 6
38

leg islation, and if you could make some sug gestions fo r the record, 

the n 1 would appre cia te it. An d 1 th in k it would be very h elp ful to me 

as we proceed to ma rk up th is leg islation, if t hat tim e arise s.

I would also appre cia te yo ur view of the effect th at this legisla tion 

has on e xpenditure s made pr io r to the effective date of his legisla tion , 

when pro tec tive pr op erty comes out fro m under the pro tec tio n of the 

Secre t Service an d th e rela ted problem s to tha t.

Spe cifically, I would think th at may be San Clemen te or Ivey Biscayne migh t be specific problem s. W ha t ha pp en s when Presiden t 

Nix on's prop erty no longer is en titled to pro tec tion, wh at effect would 

th is leg islation have, both for tax purposes and fo r the purposes of 

leg islation ?

Mr. Keller. Mr. Bu tle r, I am not prep ared to do th at rig ht now.

Mi-. Butler. We ll, I certa inly do not wa nt an answer if you are 

not prepare d. But, would you do us the cou rtesy of review ing yo ur 

th inki ng on this and let us know fo r the record at yo ur ear liest convenience ?

Mr. K eller. Off-hand, I th in k th at perhap s some of the term inatio n pro ced ures might apply .

Mr. Butler. Well, you have prepare d thi s rep ort, so you know specifically what is invo lved in it, and I am anx ious, I do not want to 

do an injustice in writ in g in leg islation and have some retroa ctive 

effect th at is not an tic ipa ted , so T would aprec iat e yo ur view on th at 

sim ply , and then v e will det erm ine the policy of wh at we want to 

do. Bu t, I wou ld like to know the effect of wh at we are about to do, 

before we do it, if possible.

Mr. Keller. We will be glad to supp ly th at for the record.

Mr. Butler. A nd would von also, to the e xtent th at you can, relate 

this also to the tax questio ns which would na tu ra lly arise based on 

fhe recent rep orts of the Jo in t Com mittee on In tern al Revenue Tax atio n and the effect th at th is legislation might have on the tax consequences, both as to Ivey Biscayne and San Clemen te, and gener ally 

prop erty u nder the pr ote cti on of the Secret S ervice?

Mr. K eller. M r. Bu tle r, we will try ou r hand. I rea lly think th at 

the ap pr op riate agency you sho uld ask is t he In te rn al Revenue Se rvice.

Mr. Butler. W ell, if you wa nt to disc laim th at , just do it for the 

record, and we will look to somebody else. Bu t. if we can get the ben efit of yo ur judgm ent, wi thou t any e xtr a cha rge , why , 1 th ink, I would 

like t o have it.

Mr. Keller. Yes, sir.

Mr. Butler. A nd I yield back the balance of my tim e, Mr. Cha irman.

[T he inf orma tio n referre d to follow s:]

Comptroller General of the United States,

Washington, D.C., October 1, 1974.

lion. Harold D. Donohue,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Claims and Governmental Relations, Committee on

the Judiciary, House of Representatives.

Dear Mr. Chairman : During my testimony before your subcommittee on

August 21, 1974, concerning II.R. 11499, 93d Congress, I was asked several questions and agreed to furn ish writte n responses for the record.
39

The se qu es tion s an d ou r re sp on se s fo ll o w :

W hat is yo ur vie w of th e ef fe ct H .R . 11499 w il l ha re , fo r ta x pu rp os es, on expen ditur es mad e pr io r to th e ef fe ct iv e dat e o f th is leyi slat io n, such as thos e

mad e at San Clemen te an d K ey B is ea yn ef Al so , w h a t ta x qu es tio ns wou ld na ­

tu ra ll y ar ise based on the re ce nt re po rts of th e Join t C om m itte e on In te rn al

R evenue Taxa tion co nc er ni ng Fed er al ex pen diture s at thos e pr oper ties !

As you kno w, we ca n mak e no det er m in at io n on que stio ns of t ax liab ility, sin ce 

th a t re sp on sibi lity is ve sted by law in IR S. N ei th er do we ha ve an y firm ba sis 

fo r pr ed ic ting th e ta x co ns eq ue nc es of se cu ri ty ex pen di tu re s. How ev er, we off er 

th e f ollowing co mmen ts fo r co ns id er at io n by th e Com mittee .

W ith re sp ec t to P re si dent Ni xo n, liis ta x liabil it y re la ti ng to ex pen diture s a t 

Key Bisca yn e an d Sa n Cl em en te has ev id en tly been det er m in ed to th e sa ti sfa cti on of IR S th ro ug h th e y ear 1972. We do no t th in k th a t H.R. 11499 wo uld 

plac e an y ta x bu rd en s on hi m di ff er en t from th os e which wo uld be im po sed on 

ot he rs , pr es en t or fu tu re , in th e sa m e ci rc um stan ce s. How ev er, we no te th a t an y

pe rson pr ot ec te d m ig ht be liab le fo r ta x on pr ote ct iv e work fo r th e y ear in 

which it w as do ne an d la te r also re qui re d to pa y th e in cr ea se in fa ir m ark et 

va lu e of hi s pr oper ty a tt ri b u ta b le to th e sa m e wor k if he de sign at ed a new 

re side nc e un de r section 2(2 ) of th e bill.

U nt il th e Ni xo n pr es iden cy , th ere ne ve r w as a pu blic qu es tion ra is ed on th e 

ta x ab il it y of pr ot ec tive an d oth er wor k pe rf or m ed on pre si den tial pro pe rt y by 

F ed er al agencie s. How ev er, th e st aff of th e Jo in t Com mitt ee on In te rn al Rev ­

en ue T ax at io n, in revi ew in g Pre si dent N ixon 's ta x re tu rn s, an d oth er m ate ­

ri als , decid ed th a t cert ain of th is wor k could re su lt in ta xab le incom e. And, 

al th ou gh it did no t de cid e w heth er past l ’resi de nts sh ou ld ha ve bee n ta xe d, 

th ere is li tt le do ub t th a t IR S ad he re nc e to th e st aff 's lin e of re as on in g wo uld 

ex po se ot her P re si den ts to th e sa m e ta x tr eatm ent.

The s ta ff of t he J o in t Com mitt ee t oo k th e follo wing ba sic p o si ti o n s:

An em pl oy er /e m pl oy ee re la tionsh ip ex is ts be tw ee n th e U nited S ta te s (e m ­

pl oy er ) an d th e Pre si dent (e m pl oy ee ).

Th e ta x law pr ov id es th a t im pr ov em en ts an d oth er ex pen diture s mad e 

by an em ploy er on th e pro pert y of an em ploy ee ca n pr od uc e inc om e fo r th e 

em plo yee. Th e law cre at es no ex ce ption fo r pro pe rt y in st al le d by GSA fo r 

th e Pre si den t of th e U ni ted Sta te s.

A P re si den t ca n be liab le fo r ta x on th e per so na l econom ic benefit to him 

of F ed er al expen diture s on his pro pe rty, ev en thou gh th ey may ha ve been 

pr op er ly auth ori ze d fo r pr ot ec tive pu rpos es.

A P re si den t ca n be liab le fo r ta x on Fed er al ex pen diture s on hi s pro pe rt y 

even th ou gh it is not cle ar th a t th e Pre si dent wo uld ha ve been w ill in g to 

in cur th e ex pe nd itur es him se lf.

A P re si den t ca n be liab le fo r ta x on F edera l- ex pen dit ure s on his pr op er ty 

even thou gh ti tl e to fa cil it ie s in st al le d re m ai ns w ith th e United S ta te s 

Gov ernm en t.

The st af f th en tu rn ed to spe cific ex pen diture s a t Ke y Bisca yn e an d Sa n Clemen te an d de te rm in ed w h eth er:

The econo mic be ne fit to th e Pre si dent w as su bst anti all y gre ate r or su bst an ti all y les s t han th e pr ot ec tive b enefit to th e United Sta te s.

Add iti on al ex pen diture s m ad e fo r co ns id er at io ns of ap pea ra nce w er e to 

sa ti sf y th e P re sid en t’s pe rs on al ta st e, or w er e to ass ure th a t se cu ri ty fe atu re s di d no t ad ve rs el y affect th e ap pe ar an ce o f th e p remise s.

W he re th e st af f ju dg ed th e Pre si dent to be th e mor e fa vo re d, it de clar ed th at 

ta xable inco me had be en rece ived .

It ap pears from th e fore go ing th a t a Pre si den t ru ns th e ri sk of su bst anti al 

ta x ati o n if he allows th e Se cr et Se rvice to ex pe nd Fed er al mo ney a t hi s p ri v ate 

re side nc e, an d th a t ri sk in cr ea se s if ef fo rts are m ad e to co nform fa ci lities to th e 

arc h it ectu re of th e re side nc e or oth er w is e go beyond th e fu nct io nal minim um .

As in di ca te d above , th e Jo in t Com mitt ee st af f re as onin g re st s in p a rt on 

th e co nc lusio n th a t an em pl oy er /e m pl oy ee re la ti onsh ip ex is ts be tw ee n th e 

U ni ted S ta te s an d th e Pre si den t. T hi s leav es un re so lv ed th e po ssible ta x liab ility 

of oth er s en ti tl ed to pr ot ec tion . Chi ld re n of th e Pre si dent, P re si denti al wi do ws , 

an d fo rm er P re si den ts are ex am ples. Th es e pe rs on s are not em ploy ees of th e 

U ni ted S ta te s an d co ns eq ue nt ly may , or may no t. be su bje ct to ta x fo r im pr ov em en ts mad e on pri vate pro per ty fo r se cu ri ty pu rpos es.

* >
40

What is your view of the effect that H.It. 11409 wiU have on expenditures

made prior to the effective date of the legislation, such as the expenditures at

Key Biseayne and San Clemente?

Section 2(2), as amended, allows each person to be protected, including specifically former Presidents, to designate one non-Government property to be 

secured on a permanent basis by the Secret Service, and also requires that 

one who changes his designation from one property to another may be liable 

to the Government to the extent tha t its expenditures for non-recoverable facilities have increased the fair market value of the first property. No distinction 

is made in the bill between those currently receiving protection and those who 

might subsequently become eligible for it. It appears to us, therefore, tha t a 

person for whom the Secret Service has previously provided permanent protection at more than one non-Government property and for whom it is doing so 

at the time of enactment of this bill would, like all others protected, be required 

to designate one private property under section 2(2). Section 2(2) would not, 

we believe, require tha t such a person be liable for increases to the fair market 

value of previously protected properties other than the one he designates. 

Rather, disposition of improvements to the non-designated property would be 

governed by existing law and procedures. Generally under existing law and 

procedures all items which it is economically, feasible to remove, or which the 

projiert.v owner wants removed, are to be recovered, and the property is to he 

restored to its former condition; all other items are to he disposed of in accordance with the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as 

amended.

Section 3, limiting expenditures by the Secret Service for permanent protection at non-Government property is, we believe, prospective in effect, ns are 

sections 4 and 5 dealing with requirements for purchasing and contracting 

under the bill. Sections G, 7, and 8 apply, by their terms, to improvements and 

other items acquired pursuant “to this Act,” and are thus also prospective only.

What specific changes in the language of H.R. 114-9.9 would you suggest to

enable the Coast Guard and military services to furnish a protective service

that is a part of the agency’s normal duties?

In our report, “Protection of the President at Key Biseayne and San Clemente 

(With Information on Protection of Past Presiden ts),” B-155950, December 18, 

1973, we took the position that certain assistance to the Secret Service by other 

Federal agencies, such as the assignment of Coast Guard vessels to patrol duty, 

should not be subject to a requirement for reimbursement. We suggest tha t 

section 2 of H.R. 11499 be amended by adding at the end of it the following 

language:

. “Notwithstanding paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of this section, no reimbursement shall be required to be made to the Army, Navy, Air Force, or 

Coast Guard for services furnished pursuant to this Act to assist the Secret 

Service, provided tha t the personnel, equipment, or facilities used to provide such services are not specially obtained for tha t purpose, and that 

expenditures for assistance furnished under paragraph (1) which exceed 

the two week limitation therein shall he reported in detail under section 8.” 

W/7/ yon give us your judgment as to the reasonableness of the $5,000 figure

in section 2(3) of the bill?

We have no specific suggestion for an alternative to the $5,000 limitation in 

section 2(3). It is not possible to foresee who will be protected, the places 

where protection will be provided, the kinds of equipment which will become 

available, and so forth. At the same time if section 2(3) is significantly 

liberalized, the basic philosophy of H.R. 11499 will be undermined.

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 is too low. For example. President Nixon visited Grand Cay in the 

Bahamas occasionally. In connection with such visits, GSA expenditures in support of the Secret Service totaled $16,000 at June 30, 1973, as follows:

16 ft. Trailer for Secret Service Command Post_____________________$1,883

Bunkhouse addition to expand sanitary facilities and upgrade kitchen facilities for Secret Service and military men stationed on island during

visits of President___________________________________________10, 471

Installation of security lights on exterior of Beach House occupied by

President on visits__________________________________________ 2, 135

< *
«

41

In sta ll ati o n of el ec tric cir cuit to gara ge (w he re se cu ri ty ve hicles are

st ore d) fo r lights an d charg ers ______________________________________ 1,51 1

Tota l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16 .00 0

W e un der st an d th a t th e ow ne r of G ra nd Ca y sp en t addit io nal pe rs on al fu nd s 

in c on ne ction w ith th e b un kh ou se .

Sim ilar ly . P re si den t Jo hn so n visite d hi s Hay woo d Ran ch freq ue nt ly . It w as 

loca ted ab ou t 50 m ile s from th e L B J Ran ch . GSA ex pen diture s in su ppor t of th e 

Secret. Se rvice to ta le d $11,500 a t Ju ne 30 ,19 73, a s fo ll o w s:

Build an d alt er bo atho us es and do ck s__________________________________ $5 ,800

M ai nt en an ce an d re p air s_______________________________________________ 5, 700

Tot al ____-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------11 ,50 0

The se ex pe nd iture s are ba se d on av ai la ble do cu men ts. It is lik ely th a t ad d ition al am ou nt s were ex pe nd ed duri ng yea rs fo r which deta iled reco rd s wer e no t 

av ai la bl e. Also, th e co st of bo at s prov id ed by th e Coa st G uar d are no t includ ed 

an d wo uld b e a dd itio na l.

The fo re go ing ca se s il lu str ate also th e dif fic ulty of anti cip ati ng in le gi slat io n 

th e ki nd s of pr ot ec tive m ea su re s wh ich need to be ta ken fo r fu tu re Pre si dents 

an d othe rs . We be lie ve th a t th e Se cr et Se rvice wou ld be in a bett er po sition th an 

GAO to ad vi se yo u as to th e appro pri ate figu re to be u sed .

We wi ll be pl ea se d to fu rn is h an y fu rt h e r as si st ance yo u ma y re quir e in you r 

co ns id er at io n of II.R . 11499.

Sinc erely yo ur s,

Deputy Comptroller (ienrral

of the United Staten.

Mr. Donohue. Mr. Danielson?

Mr. Danielson. On page 4 of your statement, sir. in the recommendations. the second one you referred to the advanced written request 

by the Director or representative for making secure property.

Would you feel that there would be any need to have tha t request 

contained in some kind of a certification to the effect that this is for 

security related purposes?

Mr. Keller. I do not think, sir. that this would be necessary, if the 

Director or the Deputy Director approves the expenditure as necessary 

for security purposes.

Mr. Danielson. Well, if he does that, he is making a recommendation ?

Mr. Keller. That is right.

Mr. Danielson. I am thinking of the actual words for security 

measures. Rather than just requesting the improvement, to have the 

request contain language to the effect that this is a security related 

expenditure.

Mr. Keller. It certainly would not hurt. Mr. Danielson. But the 

Secret Service would have to approve the expenditure, and its only 

authority, to give such approval would be on the basis of the security 

of the President or others entitled to protection.

Our problem is as disclosed in our report and in the report of Congressman Brook’s committee, that there was quite a casual attitude 

in the manner in which these expenditures were authorized.

Inasmuch as the Secret Service did not have to spend its money, 

maybe it was not too worried about what was done. And if the GSA 

is advised that this is security necessary, it goes ahead. It is a relaxed 

way of obligating money.

Mr. Danielson. I believe I understand your answer. And tha t is 

the exact point I am try ing to reach. We all being human get into the
42

habit of being a little bit relaxed and casual in matters sometimes 

and therefore it becomes worthwhile to go through the formality in 

order to keep us mindful of the obligations that we have there.

Referring now to item 4 in your recommendations, which is the top 

of page 5, we have a related problem. I think it is implicit in the 

statute which gives you the right to make an audit or the requirements 

that you make an audit that the agency being audited cooperates fully. 

You seem to feel that it might be desirable here to spell out with express language in tin* statute that you do have the authority and you 

state that an express provision for audit might act as a deterrent on 

doubtful expenditures and would tend to preclude any withholding 

of access to records on claim of security.

This is similar to my last comment. Sometimes T think it useful to 

spell these things out. lias it been your experience that, your office has 

ever been confronted with a withholding of access to records by a 

Government agency’ ?

Mr. Kei.leh. Yes, sir. We have had that happen. Xot too often, but 

we do have it happen from time to time.

Mr. Danielson. It is a matter, anyway-----

Mr. Keli.ek. Sometimes it is delay which amounts to withholding.

Mr. Danielson. But you do find sometimes where the cooperation is 

a little bit reluctant, is that not the fact ?

Mr. Keli.ek. Yes, sir. T might add, Mr. Chairman, on the fourth 

recommendation T am not prepared to fdeed to death on it. We suggested it as an extra precaution.

Mr. Danielson. Sir. we have covered the point and you do not have 

to bleed to death. We will put it in the bill if possible.

On page 6, paragraph 3, you refer to nonreimbursable assistance. 

T wish you would give me a few illustrations of (hat. T have a little 

trouble getting them to come to mind. What sort of things are these?

Mr. Keller. Going back to the provision in the bill on page 2 where 

it provides for no reimbursement when personnel, equipment, facilities 

are furnished on a temporary basis. This to me would mean that the 

Secret Service could be assisted or, in fact, it could call on almost any 

agency in the Government for temporary assistance in protection of 

the President for a period not to exceed 2 weeks.

Tt might l»e one of the m ilitary establishments or some intelligence 

unit that Secret Service is not ordinarily working with. Tt could be 

temporary construction items that might be done via GSA. Tt could 

cover personnel. The equipment might, be communication equipment 

for a temporary period, or facilities might be a trailer that is to be 

furnished by the military.

Mr. Danielson. I am simply not familiar with the subject matter. 

I suppose that the Secret Service could call upon each of the several 

Government agencies to cooperate for the period of 2 weeks during 

(he course of the vear under the language here, as T read it anyway.

Mr. Keller. T think it could be quite broad and T suspect under the 

1968 act that was done, T am not intimately familiar with it, but I am 

sure the Secret Service could comment.

Mr. Danielson. T appreciate your comments relative to section 6. 

Tt has come up two or three times this morning. Tha t is the cost of 

removal.
43

Let us say they put in some kind of a blockhouse or something like 

that, and 1 think it is something we ought to consider.

Lastly, since the Government is to retain ownership of improvements, a t least until the time tha t the security requirements expire, 

would you give us a comment as to whether you feel it would be desirable to have some type of lien recorded with the real estate records ? 

Internal Revenue, for example, can file a tax lien. We are all familiar with home mortgages. Is there some kind of a lien to protect this 

interest, or would the fact that is a part of the U.S. Code or the public 

laws of the United States, and everybody is presumed to know the 

law, would that be sufficient in and of itself?

Mr. K eller. That may be sufficient. I think tha t perhaps the best 

way to go about it, even though it would not be as good as a lien filed 

in court, is to have an agreement with the person being protected, a 

written agreement, that would spell out what was Government prop ­

erty and what was not Government property in the residence.

Mr. Danielson. I do not think it is a real problem. It could happen, 

but 1 would rather endow my President with the credibility which 

means that they are going to honor the lien.

Mr. Keller. As lawyers, we know we can get into arguments as 

to what is a permanent fixture and what is a temporary fixture.

Mr. Danielson. I have no further questions.

Mr. Donoiiue. Mr. Thornton.

Mr. Thornton. T hank you, Mr. Chairman.

I do want to compliment you on the thorough presentation which 

you have made. I would like to ask you to turn your attention very 

briefly to the dollar figure of $5,000 which is presently mentioned in 

item 3, and which is expressed as being a judgment figure, or one 

that was chosen arbitrarily in order to designate the scope of expenditures which might be appropriate.

I am very concerned about using a dollar figure, and especially, 

concerned about using a $5,000 figure, in view of some of the expenditures which are listed in the appendices that are listed in the report 

to the Congress that the Comptroller General has furnished. It seems 

from this appendix that rather routine expenditures do run up above 

$5,000 rather quickly.

Navigational aids for aircraft, beacon lights to facilitate helicopter landing, and an iron fence around the Truman property that cost 

$5,400. I wonder if you have any basis for giving a judgment as to 

what figure might accommodate reasonable electronic protection 

devices or other equipment which might, indeed, be necessary to be 

installed at other places where protection is to be provided?

Mr. Keller. Offhand, I do not, sir. But, I would have to agree with 

you, $5,000 today does not get you very far. I think th at probably the 

figure is low. And yet I have to agree that on the premise of the provision. that is. the second location, if you do not have some limit on 

it, then you are going to have the same type of protection, or could 

have as under the earlier section of the bill, with the result th at more 

than one permanent residence could be protected without limitation.

So, T think that for what we might call a second home, so to speak, 

there should be a limit of some kind.

I would like to. if we could, to review our report again and try to 

come up with a figure that would be more realistic.
44

Mr. T hornton. The figure to be inserted, assuming tha t a figure is 

appropriate, would not mean that that much money was required 

to be spent, but that an expenditure of above that amount would be 

prohibited, if I understand the draftin g of the hill. And it would be 

very helpful to me to know what kind of expenditures might be reasonably expected for temporary or for a second residence which was 

not covered, hut which did require some facilities. I would appreciate 

it if you would give us some guidance on that.

Mr. Keller. Yes, sir. We will be very happy to. [See p. 45.]

Mr. Thornton. I have no further questions.

Mr. Donohue. 1 would like to ask you, Mr. Keller, a question.

Mr. Keller. Yes, sir.

Mr. Donohue. Prior to say the enactment of this legislation and 

similar legislation insofar as Key Biscayne and San Clemente is concerned, when all of these expeditures were made on those two homes 

of our President, our former President, how were they paid for? Out 

of GSA fund?

Mr. Keller. They were paid for for the most part out of GSA funds. 

There were some, I believe our report shows a figure of roughly 

$80,000 or $90,000, which was spent by the Secret Service.

We are talking about facilities, we are not talking about the pay 

of the Secret Service agents. We are talking about construction. We 

are talking about guardhouses, fences, the electronic systems, et cetera.

Mr. Crawford, maybe you can correct me on that. Is tha t roughly 

right ?

Mr. Crawford. Yes. There was about $30,000 in Secret Service equipment at Key Biscayne and $00,000 a t San Clemente.

Mr. Keller. In our report we confined ourselves to the actual expenditures on the properties. I think the total expenditures on the 

two properties were about $1,400,000.

Mr. Donohue. Well, under II.Il. 11499 that we have before us for 

consideration today, tha t condition would be corrected. Any money 

expended would come out of the appropriation to the Secret Service, 

is that correct?

Mr. Keller. Yes. W1 len it is for protective purposes.

Mr. Donohue. And are we to assume tha t the Secret Service would 

not expend any money other than for protective purposes?

Mr. Keller. I think th at is correct, sir.

Mr. Donohue. And therefore the money would have to come out of 

the appropriation to the Secret Sevice agency.

Mr. Keller. That is correct.

Mr. Donohue. So the passage of this hill or a similar bill would 

avoid the situation that existed in the past whereby other agencies of 

the Government could be called upon by the Secret Service to do certain work on non-Government-owned property?

Mr. Keller. That is correct.

Mr. Donohue. Well, thank you very much.

Are there any further questions ?

If not. we wish to excuse you with our thanks.

Mr. Brooks. Mr. Donohue, could I for the record give you a couple 

of documents on San Clemente and Key Biscayne expenditures, broken 

down by the agency ?
Mr. Donohue. If there is no objection, we will accept the two statements and have them made a part of the record.

[The documents referred to on San Clemente and Key Biscayne 

follow:]

San Clemente

Personnel expenditures:

Secret Service, fiscal year 1973 ____________________________ .$469, 500

GSA, annual salaries based on sa lary level as of July 1973-------- 82, 409

WHCA, fiscal year 1973 __________________________________ 65. 000

Coast Guard, fiscal year 1973 _____________________________ 90, 000

Annual costs based on fiscal year 1973 salary l ev el ___________ 706, 909

Installations, operations and maintenance:

Secret Service security equipment and de vice s______________ 143, 831

GSA:

Residen ce __________________________________________ 703, 367

Office complex (equipment, cap ital expenditures, operations 

and maintenance) _________________________________ 1.741,080

2, 444, 447

DOD:

H el ip ad ____________________________________________ 428, 600

Co mm uni cation s_____________________________________ 3, 056, 600

3. 485, 200

DOT:

Coast G u ard ________________________________________ 286, 665

Total installatio ns, operations and mainten an ce ________ 6, 360,143

Key Biscayne

Personnel expenditures:

Secret Service personnel, during fiscal yea r 1973 _____________ $369, 500

Coast Guard Patrol, fiscal yea r 1973 ________________________ 467, 000

WHCA, fiscal yea r 1973 __________________________________ 65, 000

GSA, annua l cost based on August 1973 s ala ry ______________ 55, 420

Total annual personnel cost s____________________________ 956. 920

Installations, operations and maintenance: (as of June 30,1973)

Secret Service secu rity equipment and de vice s______________ 66, 730

GSA:

Capital ex pe nd itu res_________________________________ 579, 907

Equ ip m en t_________________________________________ 46, 294

Operations and m ainten an ce ____ «_____________________ 554, 321

1.180, 522

DOD:

H el ip ad ____________________________________________ 412. 000

Shark n e t_____________________________________________ 20, 267

Comm unica tions_____________________________________ 1, 622, 665

Electric power gen er at or________________________________ 23, 500

2, 078, 432
46

Key Biscayne—Continued

DOT:

Electronic equipment, buoys, and 6 small boats ---------------- 137, 200

Security detail bu ild in g______________________________ 31, 220

Additional buoys____________________________________ 1, 500

Docking and boat bouse for President’s h yd rofoil------------- 21, 678

191, 598

Total installations, operations and mainten an ce ---------------- 3, 517, 282

Mr. Donohue. The Chair will now declare this hearing closed.

[ Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the hearing in the above entitled matter 

adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.]

[Reports furnished the committee on the bill If.R. 11499 by the 

Comptroller General and the General Services Administration are as 

follows:]

Comptroller General of the United States,

Washington, D.C., May 16, 7,974.

B-155950

Hon. Peter W. Rodino, Jr.,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,

House of Representatives.

Dear Mr. Chairman : This refers to y our request for our views on II.R. 11499, 

93d Congress, a bill which if enacted would be cited as the “Pre sidential Protection Assistance Act of 1973,” and which is intended to establish procedures and 

regulations for certain protective services provided by the United States Secret 

Service.

This Office has prep ared a repo rt dealing with the problems which this bill is 

intended to meet, e ntitled “Protection of the President at Key Biscayne and San 

Clemente (With Information on Protection of Past Preside nts ),” B-155950, 

December 18, 1973, copy enclosed. II.R. 11499 is generally consistent with the 

recommendations in our report. We note, however, that although the bill provides 

for annual reports (to be made to the Committees on Appropriations and the 

Committees on Government Operations) on expemlilures by the Secret Service 

for protective services on private prop erty (section 8), it does not provide specifically, as we suggested, that such expe nditures be subject to audit by this office, 

and that for that purpose we be given complete access to all records, flies, and 

documents supporting reported expenditures. See pp. 78-79 of the enclosed report.

With respe ct to specific provisions of the bill, we offer the following comments.

Section 2(1) would limit nonreimbursable assistance to the Secret Service 

by Federal departm ents and agencies to “a period not to exceed two weeks at 

any one location in any one year.” We suggest that the bill specify whether “one 

year” means a calen dar year, a fiscal year, or any twelve-month period. Also, it is 

not clear whether the two-week limit at any one location applies separately to 

each person entitled to protection under 18 U.S.C. 3056 or under the a ct of June 6, 

1968, nor whether a “location” is a city or a residence. These questions might 

arise if, for example, there were visits in the same year to the same city by 

various cand idates for President and Vice President as well as by the incumbent 

Presiden t and Vice President.

Section 2(2) allows any person designated under 18 U.S.C. 3056 or under the 

act of Jun e 6, 1968. to designate a non-Government prop erty to be secured by 

the Secret Service. Since a President and his immediate family are entitled to 

protection under 18 U.S.C. 3056. a President, his wife, and each of his children 

could under the bill each designate a prop erty not in Government ownership or 

control to be protected at public expense.

The language of section 2(2) should perhaps be modified with respect to reimbursement of certain costs where militar y equipm ent and men are used. Protection of the President may, for example, involve the use of Coast Guard vessels. 

It would not seem necessary or desirable that the Secret Service be required to 

reimburse the Coast Guard for crew and operating expenses, including deprecia-
47

(io n, of the Coa st G ua rd vesse l. We ta k e su ch a po sitio n on pa ge 74 of th e 

enclo sed re po rt.

On e effect of se ction 2 is to ta ke from th e Se cr et Se rvice a m ea su re of it s m an ­

ag em en t di sc re tion as to w he th er pro te ct io n at a giv en loca tio n wi ll he pro ­

vide d by use of pe rm an en tly in st al le d fa cil it ie s or, as an al te rn ati ve, by tem ­

pora ry fa ci lities an d ad de d Sec re t Se rvice m an po wer —a de cis ion wh ich no rm ally 

wo uld ta ke in to co ns id er at io n se cu rity effectiven ess an d cost.

Also, un de r section 2, th e Sec re t Se rvice ca n ca ll up on oth er dep ar tm en ts an d 

ag en cies, on a re im burs ab le ba sis, to do per m an en t wor k on pri vat e pr op er ty 

which is to be pr ot ec ted. Thi s au th o ri ty is a co ntinu at io n of pre se nt pr ac tice , 

which we co ns id er re as on ab le, whe reby th e Se cr et Se rvice has chosen to ca ll on 

oth er ag en cies fo r su ch as si st an ce , ra th e r th an de ve loping th e ca pab ility to do 

pe rm an en t wor k its el f.

Se cti on G pr ov id es fo r rem ov al of se cu ri ty fa ci lities up on te rm in at io n of prote ct iv e re sp on sibi lity un less remov al is “eco no micall y unf ea si bl e. ” Be ca us e some 

se cu rity fa ci lities ca n detr act from th e val ue of th e pro per ty in th e ey es of th e 

ow ne r it wo uld see m re as on ab le to mak e pr ov isio n fo r remov al a t hi s re ques t 

w he th er s uch remov al is econ om ica lly fe as ib le or not.

Sinc erely yo urs,

It. F. Keli.er.

Act in g Com pt ro lle r Ge neral of th e United Sta te s.

Enc losu re.

United Stat es of A merica,

Gene ral Services Adm inistr at ion,

Was hing ton, D.C., Aug us t 2 /, J974-

Ho n. 1’eter W. R odino, J il,

Ch airm an , Com m itt ee on th e Ju dic ia ry ,

Hou se o f Rep re se nta tive s, W as hi ng to n, D.C.

Dear Mr. Ch a ir m a n: T hi s is in rep ly to you r le tt er of Jan u ary 28, 1974, re ­

qu es ting an ex pr es sion of th e vie ws of th e G en er al Se rvices A dm in is tr at io n on 

II .lt. 11499, a bil l “To es ta blish pr oc ed ur es an d re gu la tions fo r cer ta in pr ot ec tive 

se rv ices p ro vi de d by th e United S ta te s Se cret Se rvice.”

Th e bill wo uld re pe al se ction 2 of th e Act of J une 6, 19G8 (P ub lic La w JIG-331; 

82 Sta t. 170) wh ich re qui re s all Fed er al ag en cies to as si st th e Sec re t Se rvice in 

th e pe rf or m an ce of its pro te ct iv e duties und er section 3056 of ti tl e 18 of th e 

U ni te d S ta te s Code. In so fa r as we are aw ar e, se ction 2 has no t been in te rp re te d 

to re quir e th e Se cr et Se rvice to re im bu rs e or tr an sfe r to ag en cies th e co st of 

re nd er in g such as si stan ce . II.R . 11499, if e na ct ed , wo uld co nt in ue to pe rm it oth er 

Fed er al ag en cies to ass is t th e Sec re t Se rvice bu t, ex ce pt in te m po ra ry as si st an ce , 

on ly upon re im bu rs em en t of a ctu al costs.

In ad di tion to th e above, th e bil l prop os es w ith one ex ce ption to lim it th e 

Se cr et Se rvice to pr ov id ing fu ll se cu rity at Go ve rnmen t ex pe ns e at no mo i* 

th an one pr oper ty no t in Gov er nm en t co ntro l as may be des ig na te d by th e pe rson 

en ti tl ed to pr ot ec tion . The ex ce pt ion st ate d in para gra ph (3) of section 2 ap 

p are ntl y is in te nd ed to lim it ex pe ndi tu re s on oth er pri vate p ro pe rty to a n am ou nt 

which cu m ul at iv el y do es no t exceed $5,000.

Th e pr im ar y re sp on sibi lity fo r th e pr ot ec tio n of the Pre si den t an d oth er s de signat ed by law as re quir in g pe rs on al pr ot ec tion re st s w ith th e Se cr et Se rvice . It 

ha s lon g bee n reco gn ize d, ho we ve r, th a t th e pro pe r fu lfi llm en t of such re sp on sibilitie s of te n re qu ir es th e su ppo rt an d co op er ation of oth er Fed er al ag en cie s. 

The pu rp os e of Pub lic Law’ 90-33 1 w as to el im in at e an y do ub t as to th e leg al 

ba sis fo r such ass is ta nce a nd to a ss ure th a t th e Se cr et Se rvice wo uld be d om in an t 

in di re ct in g al l pr ot ec tive func tio ns .

GSA ha s no ob jection to as si st in g th e Sec re t Se rvice on a re im bu rs ab le bas is 

as II.R . 11499 prov id es , but in vie w of th e ab ov e de fe rs to th e Se cret Se rv ice 

an d to th e Con gress as to w het her th e bill is th e pro pe r ve hicle fo r ac co m plishing th is o bjec tiv e, an d as t o th e m er its of oth er pr ov isio ns of th e bill wh ich re la te 

dir ec tly to the pr ot ec tive func tions of th e Sec re t Se rvice .

Ho we ver, to be as he lp fu l as po ssible to th e Com mittee , we off er th e follo wing 

su gg es tio ns fo r am en dm en ts which we believe, if ad op ted, wou ld im prov e th e 

bil l.

P ara g ra p h s (2) an d (3 ) in section 2 pr ov id e th a t se cu ri ty a t fu ll G ov er nm en t 

ex pe ns e be on p ri vate pro per ty a t no more th an one lo ca tion de sign at ed by th e
4S

person to be protecte d; and with respect to other locations involving private 

property the Government’s obligation would be limited to $5,000. However, the 

$5,000 limitation appears to apply only to reimbursable work and not to work 

performed by contract. If parag rap h (3) is to remain in the bill, we recommend 

that it be clarified in this report.

Since purchases and contrac ts for the protection functions of the Secret 

Service are alre ady subject to the Federal Prop erty and Adm inistrative Services 

Act of 1949, as amended, we suggest that section 4 be deleted as unnecessary. 

Section 5 also is unnecessary as we do not believe th at existing law permits a 

Federal official to delegate his contracting autho rity to one who is not a 

Federal employee.

We suggest that section G eith er be deleted or altern atively be amended to 

reflect the current law with respect to disposal of improvements and other items 

acquired for security purposes. Section G as presently dra fted infers that such 

property shall remain the property of the Federal government under circumstances where removal is economically unfeasible which we do not believe is 

intended. The section also does not provide for restoration of property to the 

condition which existed prio r to the making of the improvement when and if 

the improvement is removed. In a memorandum of November 21, 1973, prepared 

within the Department of Justice, concerning title to improvements made on 

private prop erty for secu rity purposes, it was concluded that if items placed 

on the property* are removed, the Federal government is under a duty to retu rn 

the premises to the owner in as good a condition as when the alte ration s were 

made. Accordingly, we recommend th at upon term ination of the responsibility 

to secure the property, or if such prop erty is determined no longer needed for 

security purposes, the bill provide th at the property be disposed of or tra ns ­

ferred to ano ther Federal agency in accordance with the Fed eral Prop erty and 

Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended.

Finally, we recommend that paragraph 8 be amended to require that federal 

agencies submit repo rts only on non-reimbursable expenditures. With respect 

to reimbursable expenditures, the Secret Service will have complete and detailed 

information making i t unnecessary for other agencies to submit repo rts thereon. 

Sincerely,

A ll an G. K e m p in .
U.S. SECRET SERVICE PROCEDURES AND 

REGULATIONS

THU R SD A Y , SE P T E M B E R 12, 19 74

House of Representatives,

Subcommittee on Claims and

Governmental Relations of the

Committee on the J udiciary,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 10:20 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 

2148, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Harold D. Donohue 

[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.

Present: Representatives Donohue, Mann, Danielson, Butler, 

Froehlich, and Moorhead.

Also present: William P. Shattuck, counsel; and Alan F. Coffey, 

Jr., associate counsel.

Mr. Donohue. Will this meeting now come to order.

This morning we will begin our second day of hearings on the 

bill, H.R. 11499, which would establish procedures and regulations 

for certain protective services provided by the U.S. Secret Service.

The provisions of the bill would provide limitations and requirements for the implementation of the responsibility of the Secret 

Service under section 3056 of title 48, concerning protection of the 

President and other persons, and under section 1 of Public Law 90-331 

concerning protection of major Presidential or Vice Presidential 

candidates.

Our first witness this morning will be Hon. Lilburn E. Boggs, 

Deputy Director of the Secret Service of the Department of the 

Treasury.

Mr. Boggs.

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

SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; ACCOMPANIED BY

FRANC IS A. LONG, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ADMINISTRATION

Mr. Boggs. Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce Mr. Francis A. 

Long, our Assistant Director for Administration who is with me as 

the second witness.

Mr. Donohue. You do have a statement, do you not ?

Mr. B oggs. Yes. Mr. Chairman. I do have a statement.

Mr. Donohue. You may proceed.

(49)
50

Mr. Boggs. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to appear before you and the other 

distinguished members of this committee to present the views of the 

U.S. Secret Service regarding II.R. 11499, 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 that the concerns tha t prompted 

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

subject of a careful review by the House and Senate Subcommittees on 

Appropriations tha t 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 Appropriations and with the assistance 

of their staffs, we have developed a comprehensive procedure for 

the acquisition of space, alterations, and services at locations involving 

protective operations.

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit copies 

of these procedures for the consideration of the members of the committee and for insertion into the record.

Mr. Donohue. Without objection, they will be made a part of the 

record.

[The documents referred to follow:]
REQUEST FOR SPACE, ALTERATIONS, EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES

AT LOCATIONS INVOLVING PROTECTIVE OPERATIONS

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

PAGE NO.

NAME OF SITE LOCATION J O R IG IN A L REQ UES T

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

PILE NO.

f~1 GOV T OW NED f~ l P R IV A T E L Y OW NC O 620.0

Q G O V T LEASED ["") P R IV A T E L Y LE ASE D

GENERAL PROJECT TITLE

NAME OF REQUESTOR OF FICE

CONTACT PCR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TELEPHONE NO. REQ UIRSO COMPLETION DATE

B S U M M A R Y J U S T IF IC A T IO N A N D S P E C IF IC A T IO N S F O R P R O J E C T (c o n t i n u e o n PL A IN b o n d p a p e r )

E. A P P R O V A L S

U N IT E D S T A T E S S E C R E T S E R V IC E

ADMINISTRATIVE OPERATIONS
52

Departme nt of th e Trea sur y,

U.S. Secret Service,

Washington, D.C., February 22,1974.

Memorandum

To: Deputy Director, Assistant Directors, Assistants to the Director, Legal 

Counsel, all SAIC’s and Division Chiefs.

Fro m: Director.

Subject: Procedure for the acquisition of space, alterations, and services at locations involving protective operations.

Attached are revised procedures covering the acquisition of space, alterations, 

and services at locations involving protective operations. These procedures are 

effective immediately.

As indicated in the procedures, all approved work will be monitored jointly by 

the Office of Administration and the operational office involved. Any necessary 

adjustments in the action requested will he 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. K ni ght .

Attachment.

Procedures for th e Acq ui si ti on of Spac e, Alte ratio ns, and Services at

Location s I nvolving P rotective Oper ations

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 w’ell 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, furniture, and all other items of tangible property which are 

furnished, installed, constructed, repaired, or altered by or a t 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 expendi­ tures 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 futu re 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 1911, together with any restorations tha t appear to be required. It should be understood tha t in some instances, 

it may not be practical or economically feasible at some future date to recover 

items and make restorations as contemplated at the time the work was originally 

performed.

7. Concurrence of protectee or his designee when either privately owned or

leased property is involved.—Prior to the commencement of any work on privately-owned or privately-leased property, the concurrence for such work tha t 

is required to be performed will be obtained by the requesting office from the
53

protectee or his designated representative. When representatives are designated 

to act for protectees, such authorizations shall be obtained in writing from the 

particular protectee involved. Such concurrence shall not be considered as agreement by the protectee to the proposed recovery on restoration proposed in the 

request.

8. Processing of SS Form No. 1911. Request for Space, Alterations, Equipment,

and Services at Locations Involving Protective Operations.—SS Form No. 1911 will be initiated by the appropriate Special Agent in Charge or Assistant Director involved. Cost estimates will be determined by the requesting office in conjunction with the Administrative Operations Division in the Office of Administration. Any cost information required from the General Services Administration 

will be obtained by the Administrative Operations Division, which will also 

serve as the contacting office with that agency. After the requisite approvals and 

certifications as to the availability of funds has been obtained, the Administrative Operations Division will issue the appropriate job orders, purchase orders, 

or contracts, as the case may be. The performance of any work required will be 

monitored jointly by the Administrative Operations Division and the appropriate 

Special Agent in Charge or Assistant Director involved.

9. Emergency procedures.—When an emergency arises and time does not permit the processing of SS Form No. 1911 in the usual manner, all requests, concurrences, and approvals required by these procedures majT be processed orally. Any such emergency oral actions shall be confirmed by the submission of SS Form 

No. 1911 with a check mark in the “Confirmation” block as soon as possible thereafter, preferably within 24 hours.

10. Accounting and reporting.—Costs will be accumulated for each location in­ dicating whether the property is Government-owned or leased or privately-owned 

or leased. Any reports or notices required by law pertaining to the activities covered by these procedures will have the concurrence of the agencies involved, 

i.e., Secret Service and the General Services Administration.

Effective July 1, 1974, all costs incurred under these procedures will be funded 

from the appropriation of the United States Secret Service. Appropriate reports 

of the activities performed and the costs incurred under these procedures will be 

made to the Appropriations Committees of the Congress.

11. Effective date.—The requirements spelled out in these procedures are effective immediately. The Director’s memorandum of October 15,1973, subject “Space 

for Protectees,” File No. 530.0 (x G10.0) is hereby rescinded.

II. S. Knight.

Air. Boggs. In reviewing the procedures, you will note that they are 

all encompassing, and include operations at both privately owned or 

leased sites and property as well as government-owned or leased sites 

and property. In addition to meeting the concerns of the House and 

Senate Subcommittees on Appropriations, they take into account and 

implement the recommendations of the Comptroller General in his 

report to the Congress entitled “Protection of the President at Key 

Biscayne and San Clemente—With Inform ation on Protection of Past 

Presidents,” B-155950.

A comparison of the procedures with II.R. 11499 indicates tha t sections 4 and 5 are covered under existing statutes, and that the provisions of section 6 have already been included in our recently promulgated procedures. The sections of the bill not addressed by our 

procedures are those that would hamper Secret Service operations by 

placing limitations on the duration of time tha t protection could be 

provided without reimbursement and the amount of funds th at could be 

expended, the restriction of permanent protection to one location, and 

for all practical purposes, the elimination of the assistance provided 

to the Secret Service by other agencies without reimbursement. In our 

view, all of these latter items are of grave concern to us in tha t they 

will either seriously impede the level of protection tha t we can provide, or result in some instances in a greater expenditure of funds than 

would otherwise be the case, and cause serious problems for the Secret
54

Service in predicting budgetary requirements. Tn this regard, the repeal of section 2 of the Act of June 6, 1968, Public Law 90-331. is of 

particular concern to us. The matter of reimbursement for services 

and the overall accountability for protective services is going to be 

studied in the executive office. For the immediate future, we strongly 

recommend against a change in the status quo.

With the indulgence of the committee, it might be appropriate at 

this point to review the evolution of the assistance provided by other 

agencies to the Service in carrying out its protective responsibilities.

As you know, the operations of the Secret'Service were carefully 

reviewed bv the President’s Commission on the Assassination of 

President Kennedy, better known as the Warren Commission. In its 

report, the Commission made substantial recommendations relative 

to the level of protection being afforded the President. The Commission also mentioned, among other things, tha t the protection of 

the President is in a real sense a government wide responsibility which 

must necessarily be assumed by various government agencies. The 

Commission further stated tha t “Protecting the President is a difficult and complex task which requires full use of the best resources 

of many parts of our Government. Recognition that the responsibility 

must be shared increases the likelihood that it will be met.”

Subsequent to the Commission report, the Secret Service made 

arrangements with various government agencies for their specialized 

support as the need arose without any provision for reimbursement. 

These informal arrangem ents were the basis for the express statu tory 

authority contained in section 2 of Public Law 90-331. I n its report 

on the bill the Senate Committee on Appropriations sta ted :

The proposed lan gauge will provide specific authorization of a long-established 

practice of utilizing other Fed eral departm ents in the protective assignments. 

This assistance may include, but is not limited, to the provision of personnel 

and facilitie s for intelligence gathering, medical, transp ortation, and communications purposes. It elim inate s any doubt of the legal basis for such practice 

and assures Treasury direction of the protective functions.

When the conference report on the bill, II.R. 16488 was called up 

before the House, the following statements were ma de:

Last week, we gave supp ort to the Pre sident’s emergency action. A resolution 

(H.J. 1292) was adopted by both Houses—and signed by the Preside nt on 

the same day—to provide autho rity for the safeguardin g of preside ntial candidates. We also wrote into perm anent law the right of the Secret Service to 

call upon the personnel and facilities of all government agencies to assist in 

the protectio n of our Presidents and preside ntial cand idate s. While this had 

long been the custom, there had been no sta tutory autho rity for this action.

Our atte ntion has also been focused once again on the need for other Fed eral 

dep artm ents and agencies to ass ist the Secret Service in its protective functions. This need was stressed vigorously by the Wa rren Commission. As the number of persons subject to Secret Service protection and the amount of their trav el 

has increased over the years, these protective functions have become a governmentwide responsibility.

The tas k of protecting our Pre sidents involves fa r more tha n the availability 

of tra ine d agents. It requires the coordination of all law enforcement agencies 

for intelligence gathering, the ava ilab ility of safe transp ort ation facilitie s and 

adeq uate communications to reac h remote areas, hea lth and scientific expertise 

to tes t food and drin king water, and many other governmental resources. We 

must never perm it the safe ty of our Preside nts—present, past, or future —to 

be compromised because the resources of the Government were not made available to the fulle st extent possible to insu re their protection.
55

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 

tha t it would be totally impractical for the Secret Service to accurately project for budgetary purposes the variety of specialized needs 

which could occur in the total protection environment. Inasmuch as 

our requests fo r support are made to a number of different agencies, 

the budgetary impact on any one particu lar agency is minimized. 

However, we recognize tha t some years have passed since Congress 

spoke to this issue; and for that reason, the matter will be studied.

The repeal of section 2 of Public Law 90-331, at this time, would 

raise a whole host of issues without providing any resolutions. For 

instance, would the Secret Service be required to reimburse the Departm ent 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 utilization of ordnance 

bomb disposal and other specialized personnel.

Along these lines, I should point out tha t 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 or leased 

property.

In view of the above, we strongly urge tha t section 2 of Public 

Law 90-331 not be repealed as provided by section 9 of the 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 for 

the time being.

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 II.P. 11499 become moot.

With respect to section 2(2) and 2(3) of the bill, past history indicates tha t 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 $5,000 limitation in section 2(3) of the bill on the amount tha t 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 th at, 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 Serv-
ice would still be charged with providing the required protection. Due 

to the proposed limitation of $5,000 and the prohibition on permanent 

guards, little could be done to permanently secure a second residence. 

In the absence of the residence being permanently secured, the Service 

would be forced to utilize additional personnel over and above the 

normal 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 2(2) raises additional

Q

uestions. For instance, the fence installed around the Truman resience some years ago at a cost of a little over $5,000 may well be worth 

as much as $50,000 or more at today ’s fa ir 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 

particular site should the requirement for reimbursement remain.

Section 7 of the bill is related to section 9 in that after a period of 2 

weeks, any support received from other agencies would be subject to 

reimbursement from funds appropriated to the Secret Service. For 

the same reasons cited earlier with respect to section 9, the service 

urges that this provision not be adopted.

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

has been directed by the Subcommittees on Appropriations to submit 

quarterly reports of activities performed and the costs incurred to the 

Appro priations Committees of the Congress. I might add, th at under 

existing law, all records and accounts of expenditures are subject to 

audit by the General Accounting Office.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, we believed tha t the procedures already 

established at the direction of the Subcommittees on Appropriations 

are adequate to meet the concerns of the Congress with respect to our 

protective operations, and we recommend tha t action on any legislation on this subject be deferred.

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.

Mr. Donohue. Mr. Butler.

Mr. B utler. Mr. Chairman, I will reserve my questions until a later 

time.

Mr. Donohue. Mr. Mann.

Mr. Mann. I recognize tha t you have not tried to solve the accounting problem tha t Congress would have by having each agency tha t 

eventually becomes involved in the protection of the President itemize 

the cost that it will incur in connection with the protection of the President. So, we are going to be wandering along in the dark to a degree 

as far as the cost is concerned and th at is what II.R. 11499 is designed 

to prevent. Do you think there can be a budgetary prediction made 

by the Department of Defense or other departments for the purpose 

of getting some figure for the cost of this service ?

Mr. Boggs. Well, I would say in any budgetary process, Mr. Congressman, we all work along the same lines as fa r as projecting is con-
57

cerned this years estima tes are based on las t year costs. Bu t, the expenditu res an d a ctivities in the a rea of our prote ctive mission are so mewhat unpredictable. It is no t pre dic tab le because the numb er of pr otectees each ye ar changes, it has been esc alating. We cannot pre dic t 

their tra ve l accur ately, alt ho ug h in ou r bu dget process we do this to 

the best of ou r ability r ela tiv e to our perman ent protectees.

I wou ld ask M r. Lo ng if he has any ad ditio na l com men ts?

Mr. Man n. I I ow abo ut a repo rting pro ced ure th at would br ing all 

of this together in one place pe rhap s at the end of the fiscal year?

Mr. Long. Tha t, I suppose, could be acco mplished, Mr. Congres sman. Va rio us agencies th at we ask for su pp or t could be req uir ed to 

repo rt the am ounts of money the y exp end ed in pr ov iding assistance 

to us. I have some dou bts in my own mind th at that wo uld be de sirabl e 

for the sim ple reas on it gives away the level of supp ort and, in my 

judg me nt, som ewhat compromises the se curity.

Mr. Man n. We ll, I can see where the prediction of costs would be 

difficult because of the chan ging numb er of protectees rec ent ly, and 

hopeful ly th at will stab ilize. So, I will no t comment on yo ur concern 

abo ut th e level of sec urity th at is ma intain ed. I do not know th at the 

rev elation of the d ollar am oun ts and the g ene ral purpo ses w ill be p artic ularly e nli ghten ing .

Mr. Boggs. Mr. Ch air man, Congressman, I do not recall speakin g 

abo ut t he do lla r am ounts on a r estricti on of expenditu res th at we m igh t 

feel were necessa ry fo r pro tec tive technique s and procedures. Th e 

am ount th at could be expend ed might imp ede the level of pro tec tion, 

and by th at I mean we a re going to m aintain the hig hest level of pr otection possible. Bu t, when you use manpower, th at is one capabil ity . 

Wh en you use a com binatio n of m anp ow er a nd high ly develop ed e quipment, th at obv iously e nhances yo ur pro tec tiv e ca pabil ity .

Mr. Man n. Yes.

Mr. Boggs. An d the absence of bei ng able to utiliz e the equ ipm ent 

which, you might use on some pe rm an ent basis or p erman ent in stalla ­

tio n, cha nges the e nvironm ent .

Mr. Man n. Yes. We ll, one of my concern s is th at in exe rcising the 

pow er of the purse, the Congress has no t done the greates t job in the 

world, and it is u nsett lin g to know t hat we ha ve go t all of these fund s 

floatin g arou nd in dif fer ent agencies th at can be utilized witho ut any 

sort of Congressional ap pro val. T hat is my concern. Tha nk you very 

much.

Mr. Dono hue. Mr. Froe hli ch ?

Mr. F roe hlich. You ma ke the decision as to the level and the am ount 

of se curity t hat is necessary ; is t hat rig ht ?

Mr. B oggs. Yes, sir.

Mr. F roe hlich. And requ est it fro m all of the oth er agencies?

Mr. Boggs. Yes, sir.

Mr. F roehlich. So you are rea lly making the de ter minati on as to 

wh at th e costs are goin g to l>e ?

Mr. Boggs. We mak e a de ter mi na tio n of the need. I cannot say we 

are m aking a d ete rm inati on of wh at the cost is, because we do not necessarily know w ha t the cost is to t he ot he r agencies.

Mr. F roehlich. D o you not th in k th at the agencies of Go vernm ent 

should be resp ons ible in re po rti ng to the Congress as to wh at the y 

are s pending ?
58

Mr. B oggs. Yes, sir.

Mr. Froeiilicii. Then do we not need a way to charge your agency 

with a security cost? I mean, perhaps the American people do not want 

to pay the hills tha t you fellows think are necessary to protect the 

President.

Mr. Boggs. Well, you see, I cannot comment on that attitude. I am 

sure that judgment enters into it and we can make judgment errors on 

needs just as readily as anyone else. In other words, we feel something 

is a need and somebody else can say they do not see it that way. But. on 

the other hand, we have the protective mission. We feel we more or less 

have the expertise in this field concerning the needs as we see them.

Mr. Froeiilicii. ITow much do you limit the movement of the President when you protect him ?

Mr. Boggs. We do not.

Mr. F roeiilicii. Not at all?

Mr. Boggs. No, sir, except under a very extreme condition when we 

have some very ha rd intelligence tha t indicates a dangerous condition, 

then we would make a very strong recommendation tha t he not go 

there, or he not do this. But the ultim ate decision is his.

Mr. Froeiilicii. Let me ask you a question, going back to ancient 

history tha t I do not have the answer to. Maylie someone has already 

explained it, hut I understand the Secret Service installed the taping 

machines in the White House?

Mr. Boggs. Yes, sir.

Mr. Froeiilicii. Now, whose equipment was that ?

Mr. Boggs. That was our equipment.

Mr. Froeiilicii. Was your equipment?

Mr. B oggs. Yes, sir.

Mr. Froeiilicii. Did th at get charged to security ?

Mr. Bo< igs. I could not tell you what the accountability on it was.

Mr. Froeiilicii. Who furnished the tapes? The Secret Service, as 

I understand, changed the tapes.

Mr. Boggs. Yes, sir. To the best of my knowledge, we furnished tapes.

Mr. Froeiilicii. You furnished the tapes, too? Well, you know, the 

question is, how much stuff are you doing tha t is not security in its 

nature ?

Mr. B oggs. If you are speaking about that, tha t is the only instance 

which I can recall where you can say it is not security. It was not security. Our total mission in the protective field is directed toward the 

security needs and not any collateral duties.

Mr. Froeiilicii. Bu t in this case this was the only—you would not 

consider that security, would you ?

Mr. Boggs. I could not.

Mr. Froeiilicii. But this was something collateral tha t someone 

requested, and you fulfilled the need ?

Mr. Boggs. Yes, sir.

Mr. F roeiilicii. B ut this is the only instance you know of?

Mr. Boggs. To the best of my knowledge; yes, sir.

Mr. Froeiilicii. Since you say you do not restrict, is there any way 

we can restrict the President from having two and three privately 

owned residences th at he is going to be spending a lot of time at, or 

do we do that through the political process ?
Mr. Boggs. Th ere is no way we can restric t it is the only ans wer I 

can offer here. We do no t r estri ct it, you know. Th e law autho riz es us to 

prote ct the Presiden t. Now, by th at , it does no t dir ect us to —it a ut ho rizes. Th e Pr esiden t has the ultim ate choice of where he is going an d 

what he is going to do, an d in the prote cti ve envir onme nt, all we can 

do is, und er ce rta in condition s------

Mr. F roeiil ich. I)o you make some de term ination w ith the P reside nt 

as to t he am ount of tim e he is goin g to s pen d at a pa rtic ul ar res iden ce?

Mr. Boggs. N o, sir.

Mr. F roeiil ich. Do you know in adv anc e? How did you decide to 

move into Key Bis cay ne an d Sa n Cle mente an d spe nd the mon ey you 

did ?

Mr. Boggs. I am sorry . I will re trac t th at to the exten t th at we are 

notified by the Pr es id en t th at he is going to go somewhere. Yes, we 

make th e necessary arra ng em ents. I f it is a tr ip ------

Mr. F roeiilich. But sometim e you hav e to make a determ ination 

wh eth er you are going to insta ll some thing pe rm an ently or wh eth er 

you are going to do i t to a lesser e xte nt ?

Mr. Boggs. Yes, sir. Bu t, if we a re talk in g about an instan ce where 

the Pr esiden t o r a pr ote ctee has a known resid ence outside of the White 

Hou se, and it is kno wn th at he will vacat ion there or visit there fr equently on a c on tin uin g basis------

Mr. F roeiil ich. W ha t arrang em en ts do you have wi th Mr. Rockefelle r now who, I un de rst an d, lias fo ur or five resid ence s arou nd the 

world?

Mr. Boggs. Mr. Ro ckefe ller now is only a designee, an d therefore, 

we have only a tempo rary detai l ass ign ed to him an d the prote ctive 

de tai ls t hat we a re us ing are w ha t we ca ll a tr ip pa cka ge mode. I n oth er 

words, we would use thi s on this pro tectee or any othe r t hat was going 

to the Hilt on Ho tel in C hicago o r visitin g a friend.

Air. F roeiil ich. So you hav e a tempo rary detai l in Maine, fot 

instance?

Mr. B oggs. Yes.

Air. F roeiil ich. W ha t a bout if he goes t o V enezuela?

Air. B oggs. AVe still t rave l wi th him , sir .

Air. F roe iilich. An d t hat is tem po rary , too ?

Air. B oggs. Right.

Air. F roeiil ich. W ha t if he decides to spe nd a mo nth a ye ar down 

there ?

Air. B oggs. Ag ain, in th at instanc e, we wo uld have to m ake a decision 

on wh eth er to prov ide a be tte r pro tec tiv e env ironm ent . Th en , if it 

were more econom ically fea sible to make ce rta in perm anent in stalla ­

tions, those which could be recove rable aft er the term ination of th eir 

use, or wh eth er we would h an dle it on a t ri p p ack age p osture .

Air. F roeiilich. I un de rst an d un de r t he new rules you ha ve go t now 

you are fac ing those questions which yo u prob ably d id n ot face befo re 

because of w ha t has gone on in the las t ad minist ratio n. Is t hat ri ght ?

Air. Boggs. AVell, not necessarily in th at sense, Air. Con gressm an. 

AVhen we make a reques t we base it on a s ecurity need, and th is does n ot 

mean th at cost does no t chang e reg ard les s of w ha t went on in the pa st 

or will go on in t he future.
60

Mr. Froeiilicii. Do you not really have a blank check? Are you 

not in the status righ t now of saying you know, the need, based upon 

our judgment as being the final authority, and tha t everyone then 

has to meet our determination of need? Regardless of cost?

Mr Boggs. Any request made is certainly carefully reviewed, and the 

fiscal responsibility is there. We are not going to meet, we hope 

unwarranted or needless requests on installations or utilization of manpower and equipment.

Mr. Froehlich. But if we made you totally accountable for every 

dollar spent in your budget for protecting the President, if von had 

to pav the Department of Defense back for all of the things in your 

example you requested, you stated, and I do not recall what page this 

was on, but you listed a lot of examples of, you know, what you would 

really have to account for. what you would really have to pay out ol 

your budget, and it should not be impossible to know, or to work out 

now for our purposes, but if they made you accountable for every one 

of those different charges, perhaps we could limit the President on the 

way he runs around the country, or might want to run around the 

country because he has got to then be accountable to the American 

people* for the amount that is being spent on him for protective services. I mean, should not the White House and Camp David be enough 

where you can go away and relax and rest ? I mean, these are provided 

for by the public. Should not tha t really be enough? This bill goes 

further and says you can go to one other place, wherever you want in 

the country and we will protect it fully. But, after that, should he not 

be cost conscious ?

Mr. Boons. Sir, I am not in a position to answer that. We go where 

he goes and we provide a secure environment where he is. And, if you 

are saying, can you, the Congress, by virtue of legislation, control 

these activities, I am not competent to answer that.

Mr. Froeiilicii. When it is costing the American people big tax 

dollars, it seems to me that there should be an accountability and a 

concern by the Congress and the Executive, and there is no accountability if the costs are buried in the various budgets of various agencies. 

I agree in the protection and in doing the job they should all contribute, but it seems to me we have to know the cost of what tha t 

protection is, and tha t sometime along the line you balance the risk 

against the cost. And we are not able to make that judgment now.

Mr. Booos. No. When you say balance the risk against the cost, 

how much is a man’s life worth ?

Mr. Froehlich. That is the problem.

Mr. Long. T hat is a judgmental factor, I might add, Mr. Congressman. I am sure you can appreciate that, unfortunately, in this day 

and age the potential is escalating very rapidly in this country for 

harm to the protectees. And, it is much greater today than it lias ever 

been before.

Mr. Froehlich. But how many Presidents have been poisoned?

Mr. Long. Fortunately, none, but due to some of the actions we take.

Mr. Boggs. We hope.

Mr. Long. But, it is unfortunately true tha t the last two Presidential campaigns have been marred by either an assassination or an 

assassination attempt.
61

Mr. F roehlich. OK now. how many times have you found poisonous 

food going to the President ? .

Mr. L ong. That is unfortunately one of the things which cannot be 

quantified. You know, how successful is your protection?

Mr. Froehlich. If 1 read the committee report, in the committee 

report tha t gave you the authority it said that health and scientific 

expertise to test the food and drinking water is important. Now, if 

in fact you have got the charge of protecting the President, and one 

of your charges is tha t you test the food and the water for poison, 

how many times have you found it ? You know, how much money are 

we spending testing food and water, and what has the result been ?

Mr. Boggs. I think there has been very little money spent testing 

food and water. But, if it comes to our techniques and what we do, we 

will be glad to discuss it with you in executive session. However, T do 

not want to get into protective techniques in an open hearing. All I 

can say is to the best of my knowledge we have not found any poison. 

But, is this a result of the fact tha t we are there and someone who 

might make the attem pt knows we are there and would prevent him 

from doing it, or is it just that it has never happened ?

Mr. Froehlich. I have no other questions.

Mr. Donohue. Mr. Butler?

Mr. Butler. I want to follow up on the questions you had with reference to Governor Rockefeller. W hat is your discretion with regard 

to the protectees of a Vice President de$ignate’s family?

Mr. Boggs. We have now in our appropriation language, authority 

to protect the Vice President’s family.

Mr. Butler. Well now, this'V ice President has got stepchildren 

that you are also protecting ?

Mr. Boggs. Wh at we are getting down to again is the definition of 

immediate family, Mr. Congressman, the answer to which we do not 

have. We have done research, and we have gone back and forth on 

who is an immediate family. And, the Vice President or any protectee 

has the privilege, if you will, to decline protection for certain members 

of their family. In this regard we have addressed this question, as a 

result of the current designee, going back and researching it. There is 

no highly definitive definition or description of an immediate family. 

1 can go back to President Roosevelt and say tha t it went to his grandchildren who were protected and also President Eisenhower's grandchildren received protection.

Mr. Butler. You have interpreted immediate family to include the 

stepchildren of the designee?

Mr. Boggs. We have not determined th at now.

Mr. Butler. You have not?

Mr. Boggs. We have not determined tha t to be a fact. We have found 

no definition of immediate family except in the Rental Act, the Rental 

Agency Act, which, of course, is addressing itself to another subject.

Mr. B utler. I am not real critical, I am just curious. I just understood from newspaper reports tha t you are protecting the stepchildren 

of the designee.

Mr. Boggs. We are not, sir. We are not even protecting his children 

at this point in time. A t the present time it is the designee only.

Mr. Butler. M hat you are telling me is that the press is not accurate, and I certainly cannot believe that.
62

Mr. B oggs. I am sorry, sir. You can believe me or the press. We are 

not protecting Nelson Rockefeller’s children at this time because our 

authority does not extend to them. We are protecting him as a designee. If he is confirmed, then the language and authority we have 

will cover immediate family of the Vice President. We do not have a 

clear definition of what an immediate family is, hut historically I can 

go back, as I say, to President Roosevelt and it went as far as his 

grandchildren. He said these are members of my immediate family 

and I want them protected. Again in the instance of President Eisenhower, his grandchildren also. In the instance of John Eisenhower, 

who is the son of a President, is more a member of the immediate family. He was in the military and we did not protect him.

Mr. Butler. No fu rther ouestions.

Mr. Donohue. Mr. Danielson?

Mr. Danielson. I have been in another meeting so I have missed the 

earlier portion of the testimony, though I happily have it before me 

in writing and I will read it.

I just want to state my own position on this. I support very strongly 

the general purposes of Mr. Brooks’ bill. I t is my belief that we should 

provide all reasonable security against any type of foreseeable hazard 

to the persons whom we arc assuming the obligation to protect. But, 

beyond security I do not favor anything else tliat would enhance the 

value of the protected person’s properties, other than as is incidental 

to providing the security. I think it is what we have to guard against. 

I think it is perfectly reasonable to limit the number of premises 

which are going to be improved, shall I say, or at least provided with 

security.

And the statement I first heard as I walked in the door was well, the 

question is how much is a man’s life worth. I do not think that is the 

question at all. On tha t basis you have an open-ended authorization 

because obviously there is no value on somebody’s life. I say reasonable, the measure, the issue to provide securitv against foreseeable 

hazards, that is the guideline th at I am going to follow.

Mr. Boggs. Sir, may I respond to that and say that is the way we 

look at it too, to provide the most secure environment.

Mr. Danielson. And it is not a question of what is a person’s life 

worth. I have tried quite a few lawsuits in my time and that canard 

comes up for a cooking about every time you have a personal injury.

Mr. Boggs. I made th at comment, Mr. Congressman, only if somebody says, you can only spend so much to protect somebody. Now, that 

dolla r limitation may limit the environment we can provide, how 

secure can it be if we can only spend so much?

Mr. Danielson. We are all aware of the fact that none of these 

authorizations and none of these appropriations is permanent, and 

people come before us each year for changes in the authorization. 

They come before the Appro priations Committees for changes in the 

amounts. And what we have to do is just act reasonably here and provide an adequate amount.

In addition to your responsibility of providing protection, it is also 

your responsibility to come before us with hard figures which can be 

justified, pointing out what the costs are going to be, and then tha t 

shifts the burden to your shoulders to act responsibly in responding 

to those requests. And I am sure you will do that.
63

Mr. Boggs. I think we do that, as far as our budget is concerned on 

an annual basis, Mr. Congressman.

Mr. Donohue. Mr. Moorhead?

Mr. Moorhead. I think we have to balance the needs against the costs 

so th at we are not totally t rying to do away with any loss of esthetic 

values on properties, and doing away with all inconveniences with the 

use of vast amounts of money when we can provide the same protection 

with a whole lot less funds. I think tha t is the thin g tha t has the 

American people concerned, that we have been going in to President 

Johnson's properties, and President Nixon's during their time and 

spending vast amounts of money on gardening equipment and materials and things of that sort, and putting in certain kinds of swimming 

pools.

Mr. Boggs. We did not put any swimming pools in, Mr. Congressman.

Mr. Moorhead. Well, things tha t were done around the pool that 

were costly, according to the report. And I think there has to be some 

balance brought into this. The damage to the Presidency by these vast 

expenditures and the number of places that have been protected is 

greater perhaps than the danger to their lives that have been protected 

against. And I think we are going to have to do something about th at. 

And I really feel tha t the Congress should have a control of some 

sort on the amount of moneys tha t are being spent. And I think you 

can justify to us the actual hazards that are present. But, I think there 

has perhaps to be a little cooperation with the executive officers t hat 

are being protected, and maybe they have to have a little inconvenience 

here and there balanced against the dollar costs.

Mr. Boggs. Well, as 1 responded earlier, we have no control on 

where they go or what they could do. Our mission is the protection 

of individuals, and where they go we go. Now, as far as the control 

of which you are speaking, of course, that is out of our area.

Air. L ong. I might say, Mr. Congressman, these procedures tha t we 

have provided at the instigation of our Appropriations Committees 

are very comprehensive and very detailed. They are available to the 

Appropriations Committees. They are available to the Members of 

Congress and to the General Accounting Office. They account for 

everything we do at any protective site, whether it is Governmentowned or privately owned. And I am sure, th at I feel reasonably confident in my own mind at least, tha t these kinds of procedures will 

meet the concerns of the Congress.

Mr. Moorhead. You know, we have a question here though. Assume 

that there are three places away from Washington, D.C. where the 

President either owns or frequents on occasion. Perha ps one of them 

he would only be spending one or two weeks a year. Could you not 

provide a lot of the protection tha t you give by permanent installations by perhaps a few extra men for a weekend, or for a week that 

he might be there, even though perhaps your men were a little bit 

more in the way than the permanent equipment might be, and then 

perhaps cut the cost down ?

Mr. Long. Tha t is certainly taken into account, the experience of 

the frequency of visits at other places. And, we would not make a 

permanent installation in a second residence unless there was some
64

indication tha t it was going to be visited frequently, and that in the 

long run it would be cheaper for us to make a permanent installation 

as opposed to going in on a temporary basis.

Mr. Moorhead. I think one other thing tha t concerns me and many 

of my constituents is that the amount of protection tha t is given to 

people th at have left office quite often seems extensive, and the costs 

constantly are mounting. For instance, with Agnew, and even now 

President Nixon.

Mr. Long. Of course, you know, the costs are going to escalate, Mr. 

Congressman, due to a number of factors. One is obviously the inflation factor. To compare costs today of protection to costs 5 or 6 

years ago is like comparing apples and oranges, really, for a number 

of reasons. One is the inflation factor and another is the kind of things 

that are available to us today in the area of protection tha t were not 

available to us before. Now, we feel that we cannot afford not to use the 

various kinds of devices and equipment tha t are available to us, even 

though obviously the cost is greater. Because, at some point in time, 

conceivably, we could be criticized for not providing the desired level 

of protection, if we failed to utilize the latest techniques and equipment that were available to us.

Mr. Moorhead. I f Congress would make a limit on the amount of 

money which could be spent, then you would not be criticized.

Mr. Long. No, sir. and in the event of any untoward incident the 

Congress as well as us might be criticized.

Mr. Moorhead. That is probably true. It is probably true, and it 

requires some kind of a balance some place, and you have got to make 

some of these decisions even though you may be criticized.

Mr. Long. Yes, sir.

Mr. Boggs. I would like to expand a little bit. It goes back to the 

question that I was asked earlier, about the cooperation between the 

protectee and our Service. In this instance, yes, we try to solicit the 

protectee. Sav he has three homes, for instance, Mr. Rockefeller, we 

would say which ones, are you going to use? And, are you going to 

use this one frequently and this one infrequently? Based on this, cooperation and information we solicit and obtain, decisions are made 

regarding a permanent installation. I will give you an example. Seal 

Harbor. Mr. Rockefeller is indicating tha t it is just a summer place 

and they would only visit there maybe once a year for a vacation, and 

in this instance, I do not think it would warrant a permanent installation of any kind, and we would carry tha t as in a trip package 

posture.

Mr. Moorhead. What about Vail?

Mr. Boggs. Well, if he keeps on renting it out, and he is not going 

to be using it. there is not too much tha t we can do at Vail. The determination has not yet been made. As with the new President, we 

are still feeling our wav rega rding the family and so forth.

Mr. Moorhead. Am I correct in assuming though tha t your testimony is that you do not want any limitations by Congress on the 

amount tha t you can expend and that you want to basically be able 

to make the determinations of what you think is necessary, or best, 

or would do some good, or add a little bit extra protection?

Mr. Boggs. Congress always has the authority to limit, sir. When 

we go before our Appropriations Committee we present a budget
65

which we have to ju stify and if we do not justify it. they are going to 

cut it. If we do justify it in good, solid terms, then they will ap propriate the funds. But they do have tha t control. They have controlled 

us every year. They have tha t control on how much money we can 

have, based on what justification we provide.

Mr. Moorhead. I have no further questions.

Mr. F roehlich. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Brooks. Mr. Chairman, could I make an observation?

Mr. Donohue. You have commented upon not approving certain 

portions in IT.P. 11499. Xow, what part of II.IL 11499 do you agree 

to or do you approve of ?

Mr. Boggs. Well, I am afra id we have been opposing most of it, 

Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Donohue. "Well take it section-by-section.

Mr. Boggs. In the instance of two of the sections-----

Mr. Donohue. How about section 1?

Mr. Boggs. On 4 and 5—well section 1 again goes back to section 9.

Mr. Donohue. Well now, section 1 provides that the act may he designated as the Presidential Protection and Assistance Act of 1973. 

You have no objection to that ?

Mr. Boggs. No, sir.

Mr. Donohue. Well, let us go on to section 2. This section provides 

that Federal departments and agencies in assisting the Secret Service 

in performing its duties in connection with the protection of the Pres ident and others under section 3056 of title 18 and in connection with 

the protection of major Presidential or Vice Presidential candidates 

under section 1 of Public Law 90-331 shall provide as follows. You 

go along with that, do you not? Subsection (1) is personnel, equipment or facilities without reimbursement, on a temporary basis for 

a period not to exceed two weeks at any one location in any 1 year.

Mr. Boggs. Tha t again I say, sir, goes back to section 9. I f Public 

Law 90-331 is repealed, then tha t is in force, and if it is not repealed, 

again the question is moot.

Personally, and I speak only for myself, it is not too clear, Mr. 

Chairman, Mr. Brooks, the actual implementation of that section when 

we say a temporary basis not to exceed 2 weeks at any one location 

in any 1 year. The protectee, i f the protectee went to one place, Ch icago, and spent 2 weeks there, now, you are saying if he went hack 

a second time in that same year, the first 2 weeks would he reimbursable and the second 2 weeks would not, as I understand it. Is that 

correct ?

Mr. Brooks. Mr. Chairman, would you allow me to respond?

Basically I have recommended to the committee tha t they strike 

tha t provision and end with the period at on a temporary basis, period. And for the period not to exceed 2 weeks in any one location, 

to just eliminate that, because we do have some faith in you, Mr. 

Boggs.

Mr. B oggs. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Donohue. What about subsection (2) of section 2:

Upon advance written request of the Director of the United States Secret 

Service or his authorized representative and conditioned upon reimbursement 

by the United States Secret Service of actual costs, the facilities, equipment 

and services required by the United States Secret Service to secure no more
66

than one property not in government ownership or control, when the property 

has been designated by any President, president elect, former President or any 

other person entitled to protection under the above provisions of law, as the 

one property to be secured under this paragraph.

What about that section?

Mr. Bogus. Well in th at section, sir, we are saying limits again. We 

are talking about the one residence capability where we could make any 

permanent installation. That section then goes to section 3, any second 

residence. Again, we have no control whether he visits one residence or 

two or three residences. And going back to the other comment, depending upon the frequency of the visit and the length of the visit should 

be the determination of the expenditures made.

Mr. Donohue. Suppose in your budget you did not have enough 

money to afford protection in more than one residence. What would be 

your situation then? Would you not tell the President or one of the 

other protectees that we do not have sufficient funds, we cannot afford 

to?

Mr. Boggs. Well, I am sure, Mr. Chairman, we could tell them that, 

but that may not preclude their going there. And, if he went there, 

we would still have to go.

Mr. Froehucii. Why would you?

Mr. Boggs. Because we are charged with the protection.

Mr. Froehlich. Well then, it would be possible to write into this to 

say tha t you only need to protect the President, or a former President, 

or President elect at one residence, and if he goes on his own beyond 

that, you are discharged from your responsibilities and he makes the 

choice of whether he wants the protection or not beyond that.

Mr. Boggs. Are we saying now tha t he needs protection at one time 

and not another?

Mr. Froeiiucii. No. We are saying, Mr. President, you make the 

decision. I t is your life, it is your safety, and we cannot afford to protect von at both Key Biscayne and San Clemente, Mr. Former President. And tell me, what are you doing to Key Biscayne and San 

Clemente now with former President Nixon?

Mr. Boggs. Sir, we have indicated our intentions to the Treasury, 

and we are awaiting direction from the Treasury Department to proceed at the Key Biscayne location with a determination to close out 

the operation.

Mr. Froehlich. You are?

Mr. Boggs. Tha t is what we intend, but we are awaiting direction 

from our superiors.

Mr. Froehlich. And who is your superior?

Mr. Boggs. My immediate superior is the Assistant Secretary, Mr. 

McDonald, and, of course, Secretary Simon is the ultimate superior.

Mr. Froehlich. So you are moving forward?

Mr. Boggs. Yes, sir. We have removed some equipment already.

Mr. F roeiiltcii. How much protection do you give a former President ? I mean, how many men to protect him ?

Mr. B oggs. Again, sir, in open session without discussing numbers, 

I will be glad to discuss with you-----

Mr. F roehlich. What are the risks to a form er President? I mean, 

he is no longer in authority, and we could get this information by go-
67

ing into executive session, but you know, I think there is a certain 

amount—I think the gentleman from California has some good questions. You know, how much security do we have to provide a former 

President and, you know, what are the risks and how much do we have 

to spend to protect him?

Air. Boggs. I would say, sir, tha t the risk can vary depending upon 

the social atmosphere.

Mr. Froehlicii. How much danger is there for the assassination of a 

former President?

Mr. Boggs. Well, sir. I cannot respond. That is not our function. 

The law says th at we will protect and we do th at prudently and judiciously. And in the instance you cite-----

Mr. Froehlicii. But you cannot talk about how prudently and ju diciously ?

Mr. Boggs. I can talk to you about it, sir, privately or with any 

member of the committee. I do not like to discuss numbers and techniques in an open session, but we are very happy to sit down with 

anyone.

Mr. Froehlicii. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Boggs. But may I say in protection of former Presidents we do 

have precedent. We have had three former Presidents and we do have 

a precedent relative to numbers, for instance, not tha t they are fixed in 

any one instance. It depends again upon the individual and what the 

atmosphere surrounding tha t individual is, the mobility of tha t person. A person who goes to one place and stays there and never leaves, 

certainly needs a lot less personnel than one who moves around the 

country.

Mr. Froehlicii. Harry Truman?

Mr. Boggs. President Truman, yes sir, a much lower level of manpower and equipment than if he were moving frequently and constantly around the country or around the world.

Mr. F roehlicii. Do you not think that a proper question for Congress to address itself to is the amount of money they are going 

to spend on the protection, and in this case of a former President, and 

I am talking about whether it be H arry Truman, or Lyndon Johnson 

or Jer ry Ford or whoever is the former President? You know, how 

much realistically should the American people spend to protect him? 

Now, we have never had a former President assassinated, never. And 

how long have you protected former Presidents ?

Mr. Boggs. Since 1965, sir.

Mr. Froehlicii. Since 1965?

Mr. Boggs. Yes, sir.

Air. F roehlicii. Up until 1965 have we ever had any threatened, or 

prior to that? Why did we start protecting former Presidents, because the Warren Commission thought it would be a good idea ?

Air. Boggs. It was the result of an action of Congress, a joint 

resolution in 1965, not the Warren Commission.

Air. Froehlicii. Who recommended it? Did somebody in Congress 

get the idea and we whipped it through here ?

Air. Boggs. I do not have the historical data as to who introduced 

tho resolution or the bill.
G8

Mr. Froeiilicii. Where did the recommendation come from? Did 

it come from you ?

Mr. Boggs. No, sir. I think it came from President Johnson. I am 

not sure.

Air. Froeiilicii. From time to time we have to analyze tha t decisions we have made previously. Times change and situations change, 

and in this case, costs change. And I think this bill provides a vehicle 

for getting some answers and for reappraising what we are doing, 

especially in this area of former Presidents.

Mr. Butler. Would the gentlemen yield ?

Mr. Froeiilicii. Yes.

Mr. Butler. It is also protection to the widows of former Presidents, 

is it not ?

Mr. Boggs. Yes, sir, and the minor children of former Presidents 

to the age of 16; unless such protection is declined.

Mr. Butler. Minor children of former Presidents? And did T read 

correctly tha t we are spending $300,000 a year on the protection of 

Airs. Eisenhower, Aramie Eisenhower ?

Air. Long. Yes, sir.

Air. Butler. That is not an inaccurate statement ?

Mr. Long. Correct, that is not an inaccurate statement, sir.

Air. Butler. AVell, at the time we expanded it to the protection 

of former Presidents, tha t was the same time we expanded it to the 

widows?

Air. Boggs. Yes. There were subsequent amendments, as I recall, 

about tha t time, that included widows of former Presidents unless they 

remarried or declined. In the case of Mrs. Onassis, of course, we do 

not protect her.

Air. L ong. Those were a series of acts by the Congress, as I recall.

Air. Boggs. A series of acts that changed the authority.

Air. B utler. I recognize this is not within the scope of this legislation, but I am curious as to what extent is the Secret Service protection 

simply a protection from annoyance to ex-Presidents?

Air. Boggs. AVe do not look at it from that position.

Air. Butler. This is purely security, life or accident ?

Mr. Boggs. We are interested in their protection and safety.

Air. Butler. Thank you. No questions. I yield back.

Air. Froeiilicii. I yield back. Air. Chairman.

Air. Danielson. Alay I ask a couple of questions. Air. Chairman ?

Air. Donoiiue. You may.

Air. Danielson. I feel Air. Froehlich has brought up a relevant point.

Air. Butler. That was mine, George.

Air. Danielson. It had not even occurred to me. I would assume then 

tha t we are presently protecting Mrs. Truman as well as Airs. Eisenhower?

Air. Boggs. And Airs. Johnson.

Air. Danielson. Are there any others still alive ?

Mr. Boggs. No. J ust those three. Airs. Onassis has remarried, which 

by law precludes her protection.

Air. Danielson. I do not remember. Airs. Coolidge or Airs. Hard ing 

or somebody just died a couple of years ago. Were they included?

Air. Boggs. No, they were not.
69

Mr. Danielson. At least we do not reach Mrs. Roosevelt Lon gw orth?

Mr. Boggs. No.

Mr. Danielson. And age 16 is the age lim it on t hat ?

Mr. Boggs. That is the age lim it fo r the minor child ren of form er 

Pr esiden ts to receive protection.

Mr. Danielson. Pr esiden t Jo hn F. Ke nn edy’s ch ild ren I guess 

wou ld still be und er 16?

Mr. Boggs. No. W e drop ped Ca rolin e las t November. We still have 

Jo hn Ke nne dy.

Mr. Danielson. I was not even aw are of this . Mr. Tru man an d Mr. 

Eisen howe r, the form er Presidents, are both dead and gone, so I 

do not see how an y sec urity cou ld be jeo pardize d by answ eri ng my 

question. How ma ny pe rm an en t places did you protect fo r form er 

Pr esiden t T ru man ?

Mr. Boggs. One.

Mr. Danielson. Ju st the home. IIo w about form er Pr esiden t 

Eis enh ow er ?

Mr. Boggs. One.

Mr. Danielson. An d h is m ain abode w as G ett ysburg?

Mr. B oggs. Ge tty sburg, yes, sir.

Mr. Danielson. T ho ug h he spen t ma ny m ont hs of the yea r dow n in 

Pa lm Sprin gs .

Mr. Boggs. Yes, sir , in a cottage th at was c onstructed whi le he was 

un der ou r pro tec tio n, and du ring the construction, they were kind 

enough to build in some things , at no expense to us or the Go vernment.

Mr. Danielson. Well, I th in k th at was bu ilt by some very good 

friends o f Mr. Eisenh ow er’s, i f I rem ember correctly.

Mr. Boggs. Yes, sir. But they also a ccomm odated some of o ur needs 

in t he ir con struction.

Mr. Danielson. Di d you hav e any type of pe rm an ent prote cti on 

there or only when he was P re side nt ?

Mr. Boggs. On ly whe n he was here . Th e cot tag e, of course, is on a 

private go lf club also.

Mr. Danielson. Yes, I know where it is. I th in k th is othe r asp ect 

tho ug h of g ettin g, into the pe rip he ral rel atives of a form er Pr es id en t 

sho uld be significant. I th in k ce rta inly Mrs. Tr um an and Mrs. Eisen ­

how er should be rea son abl y pro tec ted , but I ju st c annot imagi ne an ybody posing much of a th re at to either of those two fine ladies. I t is 

ha rd fo r m e to im agine. Can you tell me wh at is t he cost of p rotecting 

someone lik e Mrs. Tru man ? You do not hav e to tell me how m any m en, 

but how ma ny do lla rs?

Mr. Boggs. Th e cost is, I would say, ju st off the top of my head, 

Mr. Congressman, som ewhat less th an Mrs . Eisen howe r, an d we w ere 

sayin g tliat*M rs. Eisenh ow er’s was aro un d $300,000 a year. Ag ain, I 

would no t wa nt to be h eld to it un less M r. Lo ng has th e figures.

Mr. L ong. It is app roximately $250,000.

Mr. Boggs. A lit tle less.

Mr. D anielson. F or M rs. Tr um an ?

Air. B oggs. Yes.

Mr. Danie lson. And roug hly $300,000 fo r Mrs. Eis enhowe r?

Mr. L ong. A li ttle over $300,000, sir, for Mrs. Eisen howe r.
70

Mr. Danielson. Does she have more th an one home w ith p erm anent 

pro tection?

Mr. Boggs. Thi s is who.

Mr. Danielson. Mrs. E isen how er.

Mr. B oggs. Mrs. Eisenhowe r visits Au gusta, Ga. an nually, but ag ain, 

th at is a tem porar y abode and we do not pro vid e any perma nen t 

facilities. Again , when th at cottage was bu ilt I happened to be on 

President Eisenh ower's detail and the y did build into th at cottage 

some of our needs.

Mr. Danielson. And th at was bu ilt on the private go lf course, the 

Bobby Jones golf course or something .

Mr. Boggs. The A ugust a National , a nd that co ttag e is th e one which 

Mrs. Eisenh ower uses. She goes th ere a nnual ly.

Mr. Danielson. And the facilities are t her e for p rotection ?

Mr. Bogos. Not to any exte nt.

Mr. Danielson. But the physical facilities are the re, and the n you 

occupy them or you activate them when she goes t here?

Mr. Boggs. I am talking about elaborate, sop histicated equipment. 

They build in accommodations for our people in the base men t, and 

some telephone commun ications and some ala rm systems th at belong 

to them.

Mr. Danielson. H ere is a hypothe tical. L et us just suppose th at the 

widow of a former Presi dent were to decide th at in additio n to her 

reg ular abode, plus the vacation abode, th at she d ecided to open anoth er 

one in A rizona someplace. Un de r exis ting law it would be your o bligation to pro vid e protec tive fac ilities the re too the n, is that correct ?

Mr. Boggs. P rim arily in man pow er, sir. I dou bt if we would make 

any permanent installatio ns.

Mr. Danielson. Who would have th e discretio n on t ha t?

Mr. Boggs. We would make the determi natio n rega rd ing the security needs. As T say, she spends 2 months in Augusta.

Mr. Danielson. No. No, I am talking a bout, I said sup pose a widow, 

when we. have a new one.

Mr. Boggs. Bu t using Mrs. E isenhow er as an example on her p att ern 

of travel. She goes to Augusta National and spends a t least 2 months, 

may be a lit tle more a year every year. Now. if th at cottage had not 

been cons tructed in the m ann er it ha d been, with some accom modation 

to us, o ur jud gm ent would say no, we do not pu t in perm anent insta llations. We would carry th at in a tr ip packag e. And relative to fo rmer 

Presidents and widows of forme r Presidents and minor children , we 

only secure more or less on a p erm anent basis th eir pr im ary residence.

Mr. Danielson. Bu t now T gave you a hypoth etical because i t has to 

do with this bill. My hypothe tical exam ple has to do wi th subsection 

(2) (a ), page 2. S uppose that a widow decided to sp end 8 months a y ear 

in Oak Cree k Canyon. Ariz., and seriously made th at determ ina tion. 

Now, wh at would you do then ? T ha t is a new facility now.

Mr. Boggs. We might make a jud gm ent for some min ima l insta lla ­

tion, n owhere on the p osture of what we would call a perm anent in stallation. Again, we m ay not. It just depends on the facility, where it is 

and how it is located.

Mr. Danielson. Th e discretion is with Secre tary of the Treasury 

and w ould reside in the Secre tar y of the T reasury who acts upon your 

reco mmendation ?
71

Mr. Boggs. I would say tha t by being our superior and our d epartment head he would have the final decision over any of our decisions.

Mr. Danielson. You make the recommendation and, of course, he 

has to authorize it or approve it? OK. T hank you.

Mr. Froeiilicii. Would you yield?

Mr. Danielson. Yes.

Mr. F roeiilicii. Do you have to send a recommendation upstairs for 

approval by someone before you install some equipment?

Mr. Boggs. No.

Mr. F roeiilicii. You make a decision?

Mr. Boggs. Yes, sir. That authority is delegated to the Director of 

the U.S. Secret Service. However, in these installations, as Mr. Long 

pointed out, in the procedures tha t we have established, for any operations or facilities, the agencies review before there is approval of 

our actions to be taken.

Mr. Danielson. I yield totally.

Mr. Froeiilicii. Let us take a hypothetical, and say widow A decides 

to take up permanent residence in Arizona. Now, what are you going 

to do?

Mr. B oggs. In a permanent residence, going to relocate-----

Mr. Froeiilicii. do ing to relocate and live out there ?

Mr. Boggs. Then our judgm ent would indicate some permanent installations, but that would be the equipment, the same equipment in 

many instances th at we were using at the former residence. I t would be 

a transfer of equipment. There would be installation costs.

Mr. Froeiilicii. What would that consist of ? Wh at would your minimal protection be for a widow of 20 years stand ing tha t moved to 

Arizona ?

Mr. B oggs. Again we are getting into techniques, sir, and I will be 

glad to discuss tha t with you privately. But, as far as the type of equipment and what we use, it would be undoubtedly, in general terms, 

some alarms, some intrusion alarm type thing, possibly some closed 

circuit television installation, and again, it depends on the physical 

set up. We have to look a t it as what do we need. By the utilization of 

some of this equipment we can reduce the manpower need.

Mr. F roeiilicii. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Donohue. Now, under existing law, Public Law 90-331, section 

2, when the request is by the Director of the U.S. Secret Service to Federal departments and agencies, unless such au thority is revoked by the 

President, they shall assist the Secret Service in the performance of its 

protective duties under section 3056 of title 18 of the United States 

Code. And under the first section of this joint resolution does that 

mean, and I assume it means, th at the Director of your Secret Service 

could call on any agency within our Government for services, and materials, and what have you, in the carrying out of your prim ary duty, 

or one of your primary duties of protecting the President ?

Mr. Boggs. Of any of our protectees, sir.

Nlr. PoNonuE. Any?

Mr. Boggs. Yes. The President and Vice President are in a little 

different category in the su pport element.

Mr. Donohue. In other words, any of the other Federal departments 

could not voluntarily extend the services and material, and that being
72

so. to you r knowledge, did the Direc tor of the Secret Serv ice request 

oth er d epart me nts to furnish services, a nd m ate rial and eq uipment and 

all of that s ort o f t hing in carry ing out its du ties at S an Clemente and 

Key Biscayne?

Air. Boggs. Yes, sir.

Mr. Donohue. And whatever services, and mate ria ls and fac ilities 

they furnished , the y were not reim bursed by y ou r de partm ent?

Air. Boggs. No, sir.

Air. Donoiiue. Did you request the G SA to ren der services a nd f urnish ma terials and all of th at sort of th in g to Sa n Clem ente and Key 

Biscayne?

Air* Boggs. Yes, sir.

Air. Donoiiu e. And have you any idea o f wh at it cost?

Air. Boggs. AVell. I th in k those figures-----

Air. D onoiiue. W ha t it cost GS A to perform those services and fu rnish tha t e quip ment?

Air. B oggs. Sir, I do not have the figures with me. T hey are o f pu blic record. If you wish us to furnish them , we could bu t I do not want 

to speak for GS A con cerning th eir costs, I would ra th er t hey add ress 

that. We know wh at ou r costs were. We know as a res ult of certain 

investigation s of act ivities wh at the publishe d figures are, and I do 

not have them with me.

Air. Donoiiue. And do I un derst and th at all of the services and 

facilities, equipment f urn ish ed by G SA at the request of y our D irecto r 

were all necessary for the protection of the President?

Air. Boggs. The requ ests we made, we feel, were prud ent and had a 

sec urity need; yes, sir.

Air. Donoiiue. W ell, pro bab ly Air. Bro oks could enlighte n us as to 

some of the services an d equipment th at were furnis hed.

Air. Brooks. I will be pleased to comment af te r you have concluded.

Air. Donoiiue. I w ould like to have you give i t to us now.

Air. Brooks. I will be deligh ted.

Air. C hai rman. I want to than k you for an op po rtu nity t o be reco gnized . and I would just make an observa tion or two and sav th at the 

rep ort of October 15 by the Secret Serv ice am endin g the ir procedures, 

I do not know why the y did it, but I will poin t out that the he ari ngs on 

how they had expended this money and recommended these expenditures h ad occu rred in pub lic hearings on Oct ober 10, 11, 12, a nd 15.

And on the 15th they pu t out some recom mended chan ges in their 

procedures, which I think are constru ctiv e.

On Fe brua ry 22 o f this year they reviewed those, u pdate d them and 

made some add itio nal improve ments.

Basically the y seem to be rel uctan t to pay fo r what the y recom ­

mend. Af ter San Clem ente, for exam ple, the y recom mended and ap ­

proved the ins tal lat ion of an exh aust fan in the fireplace. At Key 

Biscayne, they recommended a fence for pro tection, a reas onable recomm endation. The GS A—let me show you how th is ran —the GS A 

then bui lt the fence. An d. Air. Bog gs did not know wh at it cost, and 

the y could not care less, and the y gav e you every impression th at it 

was not th eir responsi bility to determ ine the cost. They are no t very 

cost-conscious gentlem en. They are fine peop le, of course, bu t th at 

fence that they recom mend ed cost $66,000 and was made o f aluminum
with a spire exactly like th at down at the White House. Tt was a special order, specially made, and had no relation to the kind of a chain 

link fence that could have done the job just as effectively. They covered both sides of that fence so that you could not see it.

As I said publicly, they could have built it out of welded angle 

irons and it would not have made any difference, and this is the problem with not reporting what the faGs are.

Now, the thrust of my legislation that you all are considering and 

have been considering is to replace this article that allows them to 

go to every agency in the United States and get anything they want 

without any regard to cost whatsoever, or accounting, the thrust of 

my legislation would give them complete authority on a temporary 

basis, without reimbursement to get whatever they need to take care 

of their protectees.

Second, it would require them, if they put in permanent installations, and went beyond temporary installation and protection, to ask 

for and get, and get from any agency in the Government or anywhere 

they want to get whatever they need to protect the President, and 

that is what this Nation wants, they want them well protected, and I 

do, all of the protectees, but then they would be required under this 

legislation to reimburse those agencies at a later date, afte r it was installed. They could come to Congress and Congress will give them the 

money. There is no question about that.

I feci certain that Mr. Boggs is aware of this report, and T might 

say if you have not received a copy of that report, Mr. Boggs. I wanted 

you to have a copy of the report.

Mr. Bonus. I have it. sir.

Mr. Brooks. You do have it ?

Mr. Bonus. Yes, sir.

Mr. Brooks. And you will recollect that it was approved by a vote of 

36 to 0, and (his is on a bipartisan basis, by the Government Operations Committee, and has some rather clear examples of mismanagement. And so this legislation will just allow the Secret Service to do 

whatever you think is necessary without reimbursement on a temporary basis, and would require you to keep an accounting of what you 

spend otherwise. And you can hide that anyway you want. The Secret 

Service has the authority to change funds around, they have some 

flexibility down there. I understand that. I am not limiting that in 

any way. But, on the general expenditures you will have to come in 

and reimburse those agencies, and so we will know what the cost is. 

and then Mr. Froehlich’s question can be answered as to what we do 

spend, in effect, to protect widows, and all of the protectees, and the 

President, and the Vice President, and his family. And I would say 

that this reimbursement subsequently takes any pressure off of you 

about having the funds to accomplish that which is necessary for the 

protectees.

Those tape machines, I never did find out, T never did think about 

that, and we did not use that. Hiat was one of the most interesting 

things 1 heard in th at little meeting, that those things belong to you. 

and if they were security oriented. 1 would like to know who au tho rized that? It was your predecessor probably. But, I want to say tha t 

everyone believes in protection for the protectees and the President.
74

T might say th at Gover nor Rocke feller volunteered, he came bv my 

oflice and visited and he said, you know, the Secret Service was out at 

my place, and he stayed ou t on F oxliall Road, an d he sa id the y wanted 

to pu t some lights out in the back. And he sa id T to ld them it’s all righ t 

to put those lig hts out, Congressma n, b ut T remembe red you and T to ld 

them to send me the bill, and so I am encourage d by Mr. Rocke feller’s 

attitud e. And T am sure the Secret Serv ice will be pleased to do th at.

Bu t, T would say th at the Am erican people are int ere ste d in pr otecting our America n Presidents, and Vice Preside nts , a nd the ir fa milies, and we wan t them to have decent homes. An d I th in k fixing up 

one of these homes pe r protectee is quite adequate. Bu t I think the 

Congress ought to know how much the y spend. An d when the y 

autho riz e—T do not know who autho riz ed the sh ark net at San 

Clem ente, but it cost a good bit of money, and there were a lot of 

expenditures down the re th at the Secret Serv ice recommended th at 

were imp lem ented in a very lush ma nner, in accorda nce with the 

esthetic valu es dete rmi ned by people other tha n employees of the Fed ­

eral Governme nt. An d in some instances the record reflects the im ­

provem ents were made , and the justifi cation there of on the requests, 

bv Secret Se rvice who requ ested it af te r they had been installed. T his I 

think is pa rti cu larly reprehen sible.

Mr. Donohu e. I was wondering, M r. Bro oks , could you tell u s w ha t 

was the overall costs expend ed by the GS A at San Clemen te and also 

at Key Biscayne?

Mr. Brooks. These figures are reflected in the report.

Mr. Donohue. I know’, b ut fo r the benefit of the com mittee at the 

presen t time.

Mr. Brooks. I am tryin g to think. Le t me see. Th e bre akdown on 

this is on Key Biscay ne, pers onnel expenditures , annu al person nel 

cost $956,000. T will leave off the hundred s.

Mr. D onohue. W as t hat G SA person nel ?

"Mr. B rooks. G SA ’s annual cost on salaries was $55,000. Th e W hite 

House com municatio ns cost was $65,000. Th e Coast Gu ard pa tro l, 

the v ha d a full time Coast Gua rd pa tro l outsid e of th at sh ark net , 

and they w ere on 24-hour du ty------

Mr. D onohue. Well , how much w as tha t ?

Mr. Brooks. $467,000. Th e Secre t Service personnel fo r fiscal ye ar 

1973 was $369,000.

Mr. Donohu e. W ell, th at came out of th ei r budget?

Mr. Brooks. That is correct. Bu t, it did not cover any of these 

others.

Mr. Donohue. W ha t T am intere sted in is findin g ou t how much 

came ou t of GSA ’s budget.

Mr. Brooks. W ell, fo r th ei r ann ual cost of salarie s, it was $55,000, 

fo r insta lla tio n, opera tions, and maintena nce , capital exp enditure s, 

equ ipm ent, opera tion and mainte nan ce, it was a total of $1,180,522. 

Th at is only at Key Biscay ne.

An d at San Clemen te the GS A figure only , annu al salaries were 

$82,000 p lus, and insta lla tio n, ope rations, and mainte nan ce, residence, 

oflice complex, e quipm ent, ca pital e xpenditure s, o perat ion , and m ain tenance total ed $2,444,447.

Mr. D onohue. Now, ju st a m ome nt. Do T und ers tan d th at the Secr et 

Serv ice agency directed and autho riz ed or requested a ll of these?
75

Mr. B oggs. All of those expenditures were not a t the request of the 

Secret Service.

Mr. Donohue. Well, at whose request?

Mr. Boggs. Well, I cannot speak for the military. They did work on 

installation on the house down there and th at type of thing. Well, as I 

say. all of these expenditures were not at our request.

Mr. Moorhead. Well, one thing 1 would like to know is, how many 

days were spent at those places to justify tha t kind of expenditure 

for security?

Mr. Donohue. I do not think that these gentlemen would know that.

Mr. Moorhead. Well, I would imagine tha t they would. They provided the services. How many days were spent at these locations to 

provide the justification for this kind of expenditure?

Mr. Boggs. You mean how many days was the protectee there?

Mr. Moorhead. Yes.

Mr. Boggs. I do not have the exact figures.

Mr. Brooks. One thing tha t you might be interested in is that the 

Department of Transportation furnished at Key Biscayne electronic 

equipment, buoys, and six small boats, for $137,000, and a security 

detail building for $31,000, additional buoys for $1,500, docking and 

a boat house for the President’s hydrofoil at $21,000. And the Dep artment of Transportation expended $191,000 down there.

Mr. Mann. Are you saying now tha t tha t request did not come 

through-----

Mr. Boggs. I said, sir, tha t all of the GSA expenditures are not at 

our request.

Mr. Mann. How about the DOT?

Mr. Boggs. The Coast Guard control was at our request, yes, sir.

Mr. Danielson. The Coast Guard is in the Department of T ransportation.

Mr. Mann. Going back for a moment, and pardon me for interrup ting, the figure you gave us in connection with Mrs. Eisenhower, for 

example, was slightly over $300,000. Are there additional amounts expended by GSA, perhaps at your request in connection with her 

protection ?

Mr. Boggs. Th at would be strictly for a maintenance type posture.

Mr. Froehlich. Maintaining what?

Mr. Boggs. Some supplies.

Mr. Mann. How about matters like type of automobiles?

Mr. Boggs. No, sir.

Mr. Mann. Things of tha t sort?

Mr. Boggs. No, sir. That is out of ours.

Mr. Mann. You provide an automobile?

Mr. Boggs. Yes, sir.

Mr. Butler. You do? I did not understand tha t answer.

Mr. Boggs. Yes, we do provide an automobile.

Getting back to what I think your point is, Mr. Congressman, the 

expenditures tha t GSA made, as I understand it, a great deal of those 

expenditures made by GSA were in their role as support of the President’s administrative type operations. This is my understanding.

Mr. Mann. But getting back to the widow situation again-----

Mr. L ong. They have very minimal expenditures with someone like 

that.
7G

Mr. Mann. But since we seem to be so inte rested in this automob ile, 

vou provide and spec ify a type of automobile because of sec urity?

Mr. I jOKG. Because of the security, yes, sir. We have to have it 

un der our control.

Mr. Manx . Tha t includes dri vers and other thi ngs?

Mr. Long. Yes, sir.

Mr. B utler. Would the gentlema n yield ?

Mr. Manx. Yes.

Mr. Butler. Are we tal king about all protectees, automob iles fo r all 

protectees?

Mr. Boggs. Yes, sir.

Mr. Butler. Let us be specific now. Mrs. Tr um an will have an 

automobile?

Mr. B oggs. Yes. sir.

Mr. B utler. A Lincoln Co ntinen tal ?

Mr. I jOXG. Not necessarily.

Mr. Boggs. Not necessarily a Lincoln.

M r. Danielson. What kind does she have ?

Mr. B oggs. I do not know. I t co uld be a M ercury.

M r. Butler. Who drives it ?

Mr. Boggs. We have an agen t drive r because1

 this gives us the ad ditional security required with an agent contr olling the vehicle.

Mr. Butler. In the even t that they become ill. do you provide 

nu rsi ng care?

Mr. Boggs. No. sir. In for me r Pre sident Tru man ’s insta nce, there 

was a corpsma n. T her e were corpsmen on duty from the Navy.

Mr. Butler. So. since the Navy pro vided that servic e, you did not?

Mr. Boggs. Th e Navy provided it, yes, sir. But. it came throug h the 

( )ffice of the Liaiso n of the fo rmer Pre sident.

Mr. F roehlich. W ho was charged with that, the Nav y? W ha t was 

the acc oun tability?

M r. Boggs. The Navy.

Mr. F roehlich. So we would have to go in the Nav y bud get and 

find out how much they paid for corpsmen for Pre sident Trum an?

Mr. Boggs. Yes,sir.

Mr. B utler. Mr. Ch airma n, would it be inap prop ria te to ask these 

peop le to come hack at anoth er time and give a m ore extensive report ?

Mr. F roehlich. In executive session so that we can get some facts.

Mr. Butler. A more extensive report with refe renc e to the pro tec ­

tion accorded e x-P res ide nts and th eir widows?

Mr. Donohue. I have no objection to conti nuing thi s heari ng and 

invit ing the gentlemen back aga in so that detaile d report th at you 

so desire.

Mr. Butler. And also, you could also tell us what your view of the 

imm edia te families will be. I am concerned because this could mount up 

to a considerable amount of money. And T would like to know g ene rally 

your plans in t his area and what you con sider vour oblig atio ns to be.

Mr. F roehlich. Mr. Ch air ma n, may I add a footnote and ask you 

to bring us a record of th e typ e of protection th at you provided, that 

the G overnm ent pro vided H ar ry Trum an, un de rst an ding tha t he was 

a one-residence forme r Pr esiden t, did not do a lot of traveling. But. 

I would be interested to know. We would like to know how often you
/ /

traded the car, how many drivers, how many other Secret Service 

men, and how many corpsmen and any other services tha t were p rovided. That is a good example, because tha t is a low-cost protection 

example. Give us a total and complete story from the time he left 

the Presidency until the time of his death.

Mr. Boons. We did not cover him when he initially left the Presidency. It was 13 years later.

Mr. F roehlich. OK. from when you started until the time tha t he 

died, and when the Government started until the time that he died. 

All of the services provided to him tha t you can conceivably thin k 

of, or tha t your agency knows of. Since you did not provide the 

corpsmen, did you request corpsmen ?

Mr. Boons. 1 am t rying to recall, sir. There was one on duty, and 

because of his infirmity others were added at a later date, and I cannot right now tell you whether we requested them or not.

Mr. Froehlich. The question in mv mind is once you are elected 

the President, are you then entitled from tha t point on to cradle-tograye protection from the Government? I mean, do you never become 

a private citizen again ? Is he really royalty ?

Mr. Booos. Unless he declines.

Mr. Froeiilich. Ts he really royalty? I think tha t is the question 

that the American people have to ask.

Mr. Boggs. Sir, I cannot answer it.

Mr. Froeiiltch. And he gets free medical services as a part of his 

protection.

Mr. Boggs. I cannot address myself to the medical services either.

Mr. F roehlich. I think these are questions that need to be answered.

Mr. Donoiive. I think that might be well, having in mind the existing law which reads tha t when requested by the D irector of the Secret 

Service the Federal departments and agencies shall assist the Secret 

Service in the performance of their protective duties. I think it might 

be well if von inform the committee just what you did request for 

the security and protection of the President at Key Biscayne and 

also at San Clemente, what he requested and what he did not request, 

that was furnished.

Mr. Boggs. I think, sir-----

Mr. Donoiive. And who furnished it, and at whose request was it 

furnished.

Mr. Boggs. I think that is all in Congressman Brooks report.

Mr. Moorhead. Is the same information there concerning Johnson’s 

property in Texas and his protection ?

Mr. Boggs. The degree we got into it. Is tha t correct, Mr. Brooks?

Mr. Brooks. What was the question?

Mr. Boggs. Did the hearings before your committee and your repo rt 

include the facilities at Johnson City ?

Mr. Brooks. Yes ; they did.

Mr. Moorhead. I understand a lot of that was done by the m ilitary 

forces down there rath er than by the Secret Service and the GSA.

Mr. Brooks. Th at is not correct. No.

Mr. B oggs. When it came to the protective mission, it was-----

Mr. Brooks. Mr. Boggs, I will answer the question. No; tha t was 

not true.
78

Mr. Moorhead. No additions to the property from that source?

Mr. Brooks. I think a minimum by the military. The only measure,

I was down there for the ceremony of his memorial this past month, 

and landed on an airport, and it was built by private funds, not built 

by the Government at all, and at the time he was President they maintained some air control facilities there, all of which have been removed. And the Secret Service lived in a trailer for many a year there. 

And then they have a little house th at he had, and subsequently all of 

that property has been deeded to the Government, so most of the removables have been removed. There is no need for them. Mrs. Johnson 

stays there, and has the righ t of residence, but she does not stay there 

all the time. She keeps an apartment in Austin, and she does a lot of 

traveling and stays with her daughters a bit.

Air. Moorhead. Maybe we can get it all down to a lower level to 

approve.

Mr. Danielson. Whoever has the floor, will you yield a moment?

Mr. Donohue. T have it. Yes; T yield.

Mr. Danielson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know I want to 

apologize. I was looking over Mr. Brooks shoulder when he was reading oft' some of these expenditures and I note th at they are not all by 

the Secret Service. Some of them are by the Department of Transportation or by-----

Mr. Donohue. GSA.

Mr. Danielson. And there are other departments and agencies that 

are making expenditures in connection with this protection. I feel. Mr. Chairman, that it is all within the purview of this proposed bill, IT.R. 

11499, and I think we ought to look into the entire picture of what 

other government agencies are spending money, and it ties into Mr. 

Froehlich’s observation tha t perhaps once a President, always a 

President.

Mr. Donohue. l\Tr. Mann?

Mr. Mann. I certainly agree with your suggestion tha t we do not 

want to engage in any type of duplicative effort here, and so I would 

suggest th at you perhaps coordinate with Nfr. Brooks office and either 

designate what you have covered in the full record, and we can do a 

little homework ourselves in tha t connection. But, I am curious and 

wonder if there is reflected in that report the items tha t were done 

that were not at your request, and at whose request they were done? Tf 

we have some other method to achieve the property improvement I 

would like to find out. Can you perhaps separate that out for us?

Mr. Boggs. I again would defer to Congressman Brooks. I thin k tha t 

was covered extensively. The hearings were very extensive and very 

thorough, and I think the questions you are asking were revealed dur ­

ing that investigation and those hearings, and I would say most of the 

inform ation you are requesting Congressman Brooks has.

Mr. Mann. All right. Do you think your records reveal who made the 

request if the Secret Service did not make it ?

ATr. Brooks. Just fairly well, because most o f those requests were 

not in writing. They were oral requests to the current head of the GSA, 

who has been in charge of those improvements basically, Mr. Sampson. 

And they made the ir implementation of the Secret Service requests 

pretty broad, and the Secret Service did not look beyond that. You
79

know, they s aid th ey wa nte d a fence an d GS A bu ilt a gold plated one, 

so t hi s is where you ha d the looseness of control, an d this is t he m ajo r 

problem.

Mr. Man n. Did G SA also call on othe r a gencies to f ur ni sh services?

JSlr. Brooks. I do no t belie ve the GS A d id, bu t Secre t Ser vice mu st 

have because we have the Dep artm en t of Defense su bs tantially contrib ut in g to those sec urity pro vision s, an d we ha d the Dep artm en t of 

Tr an sp or tatio n.

Mr. Man n. I w ould be cu rious to know, fo r exam ple, w hether or no t 

th e Pr es iden t o r t he W hite H ous e m ade a direct request to th e Dep ar tme nt of Defense, for exam ple, whic h d id no t come fro m a recom menda ­

tio n of th e Secre t Service , d id no t come f rom th e GS A prog ram. M ere 

there any d ire ct reque sts?

Mr. Brooks. I t is very difficult to tra ce then. Th e W hite House 

did specifica lly direct th e GS A a nd req ues ted the G SA to do th at l an dscap e ma intenance at Sa n Clemen te an d they did it. Bu t, it is pr et ty 

toug h to get a copy of th e reques t fro m the W hite House, fro m the 

assis tan ts there, or fro m the Pr es id en t to the Def ense Dep artm en t or 

the Tra ns po rtat io n Dep artm en t as to who req uired and requested, 

fo r exa mple, the he lip ad , which the Dep artm en t of Def ense spe nt 

$412, 000 fo r at Key Biscayne, an d we have no t go t a copy of who reque sted th at fro m the Dep artm en t of Defense . And I do no t imagi ne 

the Secre t Ser vice was ag ains t it. Th ey m ay not h ave been t he or igi na l 

req ues tors of th at fo r sec urity pur poses, bu t they all kind of wor ked 

toge ther a nd they end ed up ju st doing it. And t he one th at they bu ilt 

ou t a t S an Cl emente cost $42 8,000.

Mr. Danie lson. F or wha t ?

Mr. Brooks. A h eli pad. It was one o f the sore s pots of m y he arings 

because the he lip ad t hat th e Pr esiden ts of th e U nited States have used 

fo r years at th e back , the forei gn diplo mati c entra nce to the W hite 

House on the south s ide consists of t hree b ig concrete pads abo ut this 

big , an d th at is all, an d you an d I cou ld co ntract t hem ou t fo r $2,000 

an d b uild the m.

Mr. Froeiilic ii. Mr. Boggs , un de r yo ur present au thor ity , if you 

dec ided to pu t i n a fence, yo u decided that t he fence is more prote cti on 

th an h av ing it visual ly or electronic ally watched, that th e fence is im ­

po rtan t, wh at do you hav e to do to get the che apest fence in? You 

kno w, in the case the Pr es id en t sho uld say, I do no t wan t th at 

wi red fence wi th poles s itting the re. Y ou cannot p ut i t in. W ha t do you 

do then ?

Mr. Boggs. W ell, I c an go over wh at we d id, fo r inst anc e, using San 

Clemente as an example. We needed a wall. Pl an s were subm itted to 

th e Pr es id en t’s staff fro m ren de rin gs of types of walls th at would be 

esthe tic an d acc eptable wi th th e Pr esiden t and the com mu nity, the 

Cypre ss Shore com munity . Up on ap prov al of one of those fence designs, the fenc e was insta lle d, or the wall was insta lle d by the GS A.

We h ave to ga in the a pp rova l of th e pro tes tee to m ake any i ns ta lla ­

tio n on h is prop erty.

Mr. F roe iilich. He re is the point . Th is is the im po rtan t point.

W ha t we do, we as taxp ay ers or as C ongress, w hat pro tec tio n do we 

have whe n you make the de ter minati on th at we need a fenc e? W hat 

advanced publi cit y, you k now , wh at is mec han ism t hat we c an expose
80

The fact that you can put up a $5,000 fence or you have got to install 

a $150,000 wall ?

If the President had lived through tha t decision publicly, tha t the 

Secret Service, in order to succeed in the ir mission, needs a $5,000 wire 

fence, because of the aesthetics of th at place and the architectural controls, we have got to install a $150,000 wall, now it seems to me tha t 

that type of exposure in advance provides us with the leverage for the 

President to say, 1 am not going to spend that much there.

Is there any mechanism that we can make tha t work?

Mr. Boggs. I do not think T am in a position to answer that.

Mr. Froehlich. I am asking you for your suggestion. I want to 

arm you with the authority.

Mr. Boggs. We notify the Appropriations Committee of the activit ies we mav be entering into.

Mr. F roehlicii. Let us say the President is going to be in office 4 

years, and at the most 8 years. Constitutionally he cannot be there 

longer than 8 years.

So. what is wrong with you moving in, putting up the wire fence 

and taking it down 8 years later, rather than building a $150,000 wall ?

I am using that as an example.

Mr. Boggs. I go back again to say that we have to gain the approval 

of the protectee to make any installation, and if he did not want a 

wire fence, we could not put one there.

Mr. Froehlich. TTow can we give you the authority without requirin g you to meet the protectee’s requirements to protect him?

Mr. Boons. T honestly cannot answer that, because tha t question 

came up before when T mentioned to another Congressman that, we 

had been overruled on a certain item we felt there was a need for. 

We were overruled on it, and he was so disturbed by that, that he 

said T am going to see if we can get action and he said, well, you are 

the final authority.

Mr. Froehlich. T am concerned we are creating out of the Presidency a royalty, and this is not what the country is all about. That is 

not what this country should be all about.

We should do those things necessary for the brief period of time 

that individual is in authority, and when it is done, we can put it back, 

and it seems to me can do that a lot cheaper than we are doing it.

Mr. Boggs. But. sir, we also, under the law, continue protection of 

that person, as a former President.

Mr. Danielson. Will the gentleman vield?

Mr. Donohue. Let me ask you this, do T understand that before 

the Secret Sendee agency would do anything to protect the President 

or expend anv monev to protect him. they first must get permission 

and approval bv and from the protectee ?

Mr. Boggs. As far as installations or constructions on his private 

property, ves. we have to get approval. As a matter of fact, you will 

notice on the form tha t we have submitted for the record that it has 

a place for approval by the protectee, and if he does not approve it. 

we cannot install it.

Mr. Donottue. And if you thought, in connection with the facility 

to protect, tha t it would cost $100,000. and he says no. that does not 

meet with his approval, T would like to have you come up with something that is going to cost $500,000. then what would happen?
81

Mr. Boggs. I am sorry, would you restate that. I did not get your last 

question.

Mr. Donohue. Let us assume you have sought the installation of 

a facility to protect the President tha t would cost $100,000, and you 

presented the plan to him and he said no, that is not pleasing to me, 

submit another plan, or 1 have a plan that is going to cost $500,000. 

What would you do then ?

Mr. Boggs. I think we would question it very stringently.

Mr. Donohite. What?

Mr. Boggs. I think we would question it very stringently.

Mr. Froehlich. You would now.

Mr. Danielson. After you are done questioning, then what?

Mr. Froehlich. You did not question before, but you would now.

Mr. Boggs. Because the decision to build and put it in there had 

been made by us and not the protectee. In order to achieve our goals, 

they did install, for instance, the wall, as opposed to a chain link fence.

Mr. Danielson. Could I have a minute to make a comment ?

The Chairman. It is high noon.

Mr. Danielson. I will, therefore, make a brief comment.

Simply this, I think tha t the testimony this morning clearly demonstrates tha t we do need a bill of this type. I do not know precisely what 

will be in it, but we need a bill.

The gentleman's testimony makes it very clear tha t under existing 

law the Secret Service is charged with the responsibility of providing 

protection. But, there are not parameters based upon the expenses, and 

it is just a matter of chance or a guess as to whether or not you can 

do it for this figure or that figure or the other figure.

Now, it would ease that burden, Mr. Chairman, and eliminate some 

of the agonizing discretion that they have to exercise, if we did provide legislation which clearly set forth what are these parameters of 

protection. And I think that would facilitate everybody’s situation 

here.

The Chairman posed a question. Suppose the President countered a 

$100,000 proposal with a $500,000 proposal. The witness says well, we 

would seriously question that. But, I think it is implicit that afte r they 

have seriously questioned it and the President says I still want the 

$500,000 proposal, tha t is what you would get, because there is no law 

to prevent it.

Now. if we put in a law that prevents it, there would not be any 

problem.

So, I am in favor of this bill, much more than I was.

Mr. Boggs. I would like to address myself to that. I would only respond again that we try to be fiscally responsible.

Mr. Danielson. I know.

Mr. Boggs. If you are talking about a difference between $100,000 

and $500,000, which we could not justify, then we would probably 

have to eliminate that installation and substitute manpower to cover 

that protectee’s needs.

Mr. Donohue. If it were not in your budget, you could not expend 

that amount, and you would have to come back to the A ppropriations 

Committee, would you not, for more money ?

Mr. Boggs. Yes. sir.
82

Mr. F roehlich. But if you had the responsibility in your budget for 

building the fence at Key Biscavne, rather than $66,000 for a fence, it 

could have a $10,000 fence if you had paid the bill, rather than the 

GSA.

Mr. Boons. I do not think it relates to whether we have to pay the 

bill. First the protectee has to approve it. If he does not approve it, 

then we cannot put it in.

Mr. Brooks. Would you yield to me, Mr. Froehlich, for an 

observation?

Mr. F roehlich. Yes.

Mr. Brooks. On the exact example, and the basis if $100,000 to 

$500,000, and tha t is a 5 to 1 expenditure, and an expenditure of five 

times as much as they proposed on the fence they requested, it could 

have been built for $10,000 and they spent $06,000 for one, and the 

Secret Service did not raise a finger. T hat is in the record.

Mr. Donohue. I would like the witness, Mr. Boggs, if he would, to 

bring before the committee the estimates that were made by the agency 

before you went into San Clemente and before you went into Key 

Biscayne for the protectee?

Mr. Boggs. Bv estimates, sir, do you mean estimates of costs?

Mr. Donohue. Yes.

Mr. Boggs. We do not make estimates of cost relative to the work 

GSA did. The only costs-----

Mr. Donohue. Well, you have to have some estimate of cost in view 

of the budget tha t was appropriated or approved for the running of 

your department for the year that you went there ?

Mr. Boggs. What I am saying, Mr. Chairman, is t hat under 331, 

when we made a request to the GSA to install a fence or to do some 

work, they are the contractors, tbev are the architects, we do not know 

the costs. We are not in that business. They are the ones tha t make 

the determination of costs, based upon what we say is a security need.

Mr. L ong. But I might add. Mr. Chairman, tha t kind of a situation 

tha t existed before does not exist today by virtue of the Public B uildings Amendments of 1972. The very things you are talking about that 

heretofore, in the past, the GSA paid the bill for, the Secret Service 

now is required to pay the bill. So we now have to budget for such 

things as fences and installations at protective sites.

Mr. Donohue. When you are submitting your budget to the Appropriations Committee for an appropriation to carry out the duties of 

your department, you break it down, do you not ?

Mr. Long. Yes, sir.

Mr. Donohue. And state to the members of the Appropriations 

Committee that we need this money for this purpose and that purpose. 

Now. did you have something in the budget at any time for what it 

was going to cost your agency to protect the President at San Clemente 

and Key Biscavne?

Mr. Boggs. So far as our costs, yes, sir. But, so far as the costs to 

GSA or the Department of Defense, or Department of Transportation, 

based on our requests on a security-need basis, those costs are not in 

our budget. Those costs were borne by the agencies.

Mr. Donohue. As to those costs borne by GSA or the Department of 

Transportation, can you give the estimates to us for the Department of 

Transportation and the GSA ?
83

Mr. Boohs. I ca nno t.

Mr. Brooks. Th ey were no t line item s, they absorbed tho se costs 

with ou t ma king a specific request, the othe r agencies, an d the Sec ret 

Service did no t mak e any estimates of wh at those costs were, because 

they n ot o nly w ere no t pa ying f or th em, the y did not know wha t the y 

were going t o cost, an d the y ju st requ ested fac ilities by the GSA and 

the GS A pa id f or the m.

An d the Sec ret Service nev er questio ned wh at they were go ing to 

cost because the y were no t picking up the tab . Und er this leg islation 

they would be req uir ed to reimburse them, an d I th in k they, the n, 

would have a lit tle more a wareness of how much money they are spe nd ­

ing , because they wou ld h ave to ju stify it.

Mr. Long. Bu t und er the Pu blic Bu ild ings Act------

Mr. D onohue. I th in k th at is a stro ng par t o f you r bill.

Mr. Long. U nd er the Pu blic Bu ild ing s Am end ments o f 1972, all of 

the i tems you have been a ddres sin g w ith reference to fence insta lla tio ns 

on private pr op erty , which heret ofo re were the res ponsibility of the 

GS A, the y had the specific statutor y au th or ity for th at , is now the 

res ponsibility of the Secre t Service.

So, we do have to bu dget and acc oun t fo r all of those typ es of expe nd itu res t hat you are r ef er ring to.

Mr. Brooks. M r. Long, thes e are a ll at the d iscretion o f the h ead of 

the Gen eral S ervices Adm inist ratio n, you can de legate every b it of th at 

au th or ity to Secre t S ervice w ith ou t a question.

Mr. Long. B ut the law did th at , and it c han ged the o peration .

Air. Brooks. He still can do it.

Mr. Long. Th e Pu blic Bu ild ing s Am end ments o f 1972 abolish ed the 

GS A ap pr op riations th at fhey h ad a vailable for th is purpose, a nd o ur 

agency is now req uir ed to budget fo r an d account for all of t he item s 

th at you are ta lk in g about.

Mr. Brooks. My fri en d, you and I do not rea d t hat law alike. Do you 

mean to say th at the Secre t Serv ice is now going to account fo r expe nd itu res by the Dep artm en t o f Tra ns po rtation and the Dep artm en t 

of D efen se?

Mr. L ong. No, sir.

Mr. Boggs. Ju st GSA.

Mr. Brooks. Those were the things T was talk in g about. You ap ­

pa re nt ly were no t listen ing, bu t wo will get you a copy of th is tr an ­

sc ript a nd you can ana lyze it th oro ughly .

Air. Long. I apologize. I th ou gh t you were ta lk in g about fen cin g 

and these other typ es o f ins tal lat ion s.

Air. Donotiue. Und er existing law, the Secre t Serv ice is not requ ire d to reimb urs e the GS A or the Dep artm en t of Tra ns po rtation 

or a ny othe r de pa rtm en ts, a re you?

Air. Long. No, s ir. Bu t, the expenses th at heret ofo re were incu rre d 

on our be ha lf by GS A are now our res ponsibility and in ou r budget.

Air. B oggs. An d in our budget.

Air. F roe hlicii. Air. Ch air man, jus t one m ore question.

I have here an ind ica tio n th at the GS A, in 1973, has spe nt $1,180,- 

000 on Fey Biscayne. Now, are you telli ng me th at if those expe nd itures were to be m ade tod ay, the y would be in yo ur b udget ?

Air. Long. T hos e po rtion s th at relat ed to pro tec tio n at our req uest 

would be in ou r budget. But a ll of th ose expe nd itu res are not as a result of requests made by th e Sec ret Service.
Mr. Froehlich. And are we spending any money that does not relate to protection?

Mr. Long. The GSA has other responsibilities with reference to the 

Office of the President, a supportive responsibility, as 1 understand, 

and a lot of the expenditures were not made at our request, but were 

in their supportive role to the Office of the President.

Mr. Froehlich. Have we changed that law yet, Jack ?

Mr. Brooks. Not yet.

Mr. Danielson. Would the gentleman yield? I notice also the Departm ent of Transportation.

Mr. Boggs. That is the Coast Guard.

Mr. Danielson. IIow about the six small boats ?

Mr. Boggs. The six small boats were to patrol the key.

Mr. Danielson. No, I know, but six boats? I would think you could 

do it with one.

Mr. Boggs. We did not request the six boats, they requested.

Mr. F roehlich. No, you requested the Coast Guard.

Here we are closing down search and rescue stations on Lake Michigan, but we have six boats floating around in the harbor protecting 

the President?

Mr. Boggs. Ju st one on station at a time.

Mr. Froehlich. Only one? Then you only need one and you can 

change the detail.

Mr. Boggs. We made a request for the security need, and they determined the resources needed for that.

Mr. F roehlich. You should have to pay for that out of your budget, 

and then there would not be six boats if it was in your budget. There 

would not be six boats.

Mr. Butler. What would you do if one of them was not working?

Mr. Danielson. Well, you could have two boats.

Mr. Donoiive. This meeting will stand continued to a date to be 

decided by the Chair.

[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the hearing was recessed, subject to 

the call of the Chair.l
U.S. SECRET SERVICE PROCEDURES AND

REGULATIONS

THU R SD A Y , SE P T E M B E R 19, 19 74

H ouse of R e pr esen ta tiv es,

Subcommittee ox Claims and

G o v e rn m en ta l R ela tio n s of t h e

C o m m it t e e on t h e J u d ic ia r y,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 12:10 p.m., pursuant to adjournment, in 

room 2148, Rayburn House Office Buildimr. the lion. Harold I). Donohue [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.

Pre sen t: Representatives Donohue, Mann, Jordan. Lott, and Butler.

Also present: William P. Shattuck, counsel, and Alan F. Coffey, 

Jr., associate counsel.

Mr. D o n o h u e. We will call the next matter.

The subcommittee will be in order.

Mr. Mann.

Mr. M a n n . Are there some matters that we asked you to report 

back to us on ?

TESTIMONY OF LILB URN E. BOGGS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, U.S. SECRET

SERVICE. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; ACCOMPANIED

BY CLINTON J. HILL , ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, PROTECTIVE

FORCES, AND FRANCIS A. LONG, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR

ADMINISTRATION

Mr. Boggs. I have prepared no statement, sir.

I have facts and figures that were discussed.

We had no precise indication of everything you wanted, but I do 

have what I understood you wanted.

I have no statement, but will answer questions.

Mr. M a n n . One area that 1 remember is on widows’ expense. We 

had some approximations.

There were some services rendered by GSA with which you were 

not familiar?

Mr. B oggs. That is correct. We are never in a position to testify to 

GSA costs.

Insofar as installation costs are concerned in Gettysburg, I think 

we have extracted those from other records. They would be GSA

(85)
86

costs, not ours. We also know wh at are o ur equipm ent costs. Th ey a re 

ha nd led by two d iffere nt ag encies, ours and G SA .

Mr. Man n. T hat is the cu rren t equip me nt fro m Mrs. Eisenh ower?

Mr. B oggs. And oth er ; yes, sir.

Air. Mann . Suppose you giv e that inform ation to us.

Mr. Boggs. T he c ur re nt Sec ret Service e quipm ent cost at t he E ise nhower fa rm : $12,700. Th e insta lla tio n cost of th at originall y, when 

ins talled , was $7,860.

Mr. Man n. T ha t is a one-sho t figure. I t is no t a rental figure?

Mr. Boggs. Th e $12,700 is equip me nt owned by Secret Service 

whi ch is recoverable in most pa rt. Ap prox im ately 90 perce nt of th at 

equip me nt is recoverable.

Mr. Butler. My que stio n dea ls wi th the prote cti on affo rded the 

fam ilie s, the immedia te fam ily . W ha t de ter minati on you ha d made 

wi th reference t o the pro tec tion which wou ld be afforded the c hil dren 

an d step child ren of the Vice Pres ide nt- desig nate.

Mr. Boggs. W e have a deter mi natio n from legal counsel as to wh at 

ou r defi nition of the immedia te fam ily would be and th at wou ld be 

the spouse, the child ren , sons or daug hte rs, either by blood or legal 

adop tio n only.

Mr. Butler. S o th at the ste pchil dren wou ld no t be pro tec ted ?

Mr. B oggs. Not in o ur int erpretation.

Mr. Butler. I th ink we h ad some gen era l figures last time as to the 

cost of prote cti ng ex-Pres ide nts and more pa rtic ul ar ly ex -Presid en ts’ 

widows. H ave you had a chance to review t hat ?

Mr. Boggs, i hav e it by fiscal y ea r o r as i t sta nd s now.

Air. Butler. I wou ld like to know the annual cost of protec tin g 

Airs. Eisenhower.

Air. B oggs. At th is time ?

Afr. B utler. Yes.

Air. Boggs. $472,232.

Air. B utler. Th at is in ad ditio n to------

Air. B oggs. That is f or fiscal ye ar 1974. 

widow ? U TL ER’ T h a t iS i n a d d i t i o n t o Pe n s i o n benefits received as a

Air.

Air.

Air.

Air.

Air.

Air.

Air.

Air.

Air.

Air.

Air.

Air.

Air.

Air.

Air.

Air.

Air.

Boggs. A es, sir. T his is ju st Secret Ser vice cost.

'

S t l , e C 0 S t ° f p r o t e c t i n g M r s

- 

T n , m a n ?

B utler. And Airs. John son ?

Boons. M rs. Johnson is $553,309. Those are a ll fiscal 1074 figur, 

Butler. Any other mem bers of t he fam ilies?

Boggs. Jo hn K enn edy .

B utler. Jo hn K enn edy , J r. ?

Boggs. Yes, sir.

B utler. Wh at does it cost to prote ct h im «

Boggs. $314,145.

Butler. T ha t will en d a t age 16 ?

Boggs. Th at is rig ht.

Butler. How old is he now ?

Boggs. He w ill be 14 in November.

Bog^ s

FYes1GSe a r e a n n u a l Secret Service costs?
87

Mr. Butler. Are other agencies involved in this protection?

Mr. Boggs. Not as of now. What GSA performed in the way of maintenance, repair, and supplies is now budgeted in our budget. A nything 

GSA does for us in that light is reimbursable to them.

Mr. Butler. What do you anticipate tha t the cost will be of protesting the family of the Vice President-designate?

Mr. Boggs. 1 don't, th ink we have tha t figure. T hat has not jelled 

down to exactly what it will be. We don't know what his residence will 

be. We don't know Mrs. Rockefeller’s activities. We are looking at 

the two children in the immediate family. We don't know what their 

activities will be. We are using a temporary detail until confirmation.

Mr. Butler. I)o you have any idea when that will be?

Mr. Boggs. The confirmation?

Afr. Butler. Yes.

Mr. Boggs. I have no idea. We are not protecting his family.

Mr. Butler. Not his immediate family ?

Mr. Boggs. A t the moment we are just protecting the designee.

Mr. B utler. I have mentioned before there are press reports to the 

contrary.

Air. Boggs. I am sorry, sir, they are wrong.

Mr. Buhler. Are there any other people you are protecting, the 

families of Robert Kennedy—a Presidential contender ?

Mr. Boggs. A candidate or nominee. A President or Vice Presidential candidate or nominee. That is during a campaign year.

Mr. Butler. When did they arrive at th at status?

Mr. Boggs. That is a determination by a committee made up of the 

leadership of the House-----

Mr. Butler. Was Robert Kennedy in tha t category at the time of 

his death ?

Air. Boggs. No, sir.

Alt. Butler. 1 here is no protection for anybody else in their status 

as widow of a protectee or child ?

ATr. Boggs. Only the widow of a former President and children up 

to age 16.

Air. Butler. T have mentioned them all at this moment, haven’t I?

Air. Boggs. AArho we protect?

Mr. B utler. There arc no others?

Air. Boggs. We protect foreign dignitaries-----

Mr. Butler. Nobody else by virtue of their relationship to an exPresident other than the widows and children.

Air. Boggs. Airs. Nixon will be protected, of course.

Air. Butler. She is protected as the wife of an ex-president, and 

President Nixon’s children, are they being protected ?

Air. Boggs. No, si r; they are not.

Air. Butler. Their protection is terminated?

Air. Boggs. That is right.

Air. Butler. And no grandchildren ?

Air. Boggs. That is correct.

Air. Butler. Now, the other area I thin k Air. Froehlich was interested in : He questioned you with reference to Ha rry Truman. I will 

read the question:

Brin g us a record of the type of protection that you provided, the government 

provided Ha rry Trum an, understand ing th at he was a one-resident form er
88

Pre sident who did not do a lot of traveling. I would be intereste d to know how 

often you trade the car, how many drivers, how many Secret Service men and 

how many corpsmen and other services were provided. This is a good example 

because it was low-cost protection.

Mr. Boggs. I f we are go ing to discuss numbers, sir, ag ain it will have 

to l>e in executive session.

Mr. B utler. Have you collected th at inform ation so in executive 

session we can have it ?

Mr. Boggs. Yes, sir.

Mr. Butler. Tha t is the end o f m y q ues tioning for the moment.

Ms. J ordan. I would tak e it in executive session you would give

some brea kdown as to wh at is incl uded in these annual totals which 

you have given to us, is t hat correct?

Mr. Boggs. Yes, ma ’am.

Ms. J ordan. 'I'here is some inc red uli ty expressed abou t the size of 

these figures which are necessary expenditures , I suppose, for the 

pro tection of each protectee.

I would like to know wh eth er you supply to the Congres s or to an 

ap prop ria te a pp ro pr iatio ns com mittee on any annual basis th e amount 

of money spent bv Secret Service for the pro tection of a protectee?

Mr. Boggs. Yes, we do to our ap prop ria tio ns committees.

Ms. J ordan. You give them an ann ual accounting of expenditures ?

Mr. Long. Un de r the recently devised procedures we have we report 

to our ap prop ria tio ns com mittees qu arterly the total cost of each 

protecte e.

Ms. J ordan. How long have you been doing tha t ?

Mr. Long. The se procedures were effective las t fiscal year. Th e repo rti ng liegan this fiscal year. Alt hough our ap prop riations com mittee has a lways been inform ed of the tot al cost on an ann ual basis.

Ms. J ordan. T his includes only the costs of Secre t Service and not 

any other agency ?

Mr. Long. Tha t is corre ct. W ith respect to costs p reviously borne by 

(IS A, they are now bud geted and included in our ap pr op riation for 

this fiscal year.

Ms. J ordan. T have no fu rthe r questions, Mr. Ch air ma n, at this 

time.

Mr. Lott. I will defer my q uestion s at th is time.

T am i nterested in a breakd own on these figures.

Mr. Butler. Mr. Ch air man, could we now go int o executive session 

and receive a report with reference to thi s?

Mr. Donohue. I th in k we sh ould . I note there is a rollcall going on. 

We will have to have these gentlem en come back at anoth er tim e and 

hav e them sit in with us in executive session.

Mr. Mann. We are only t alking ab out 15 m inu tes o f t estimony.

Mr. B utler. Could we vote an d come back?

Mr. Donoiiue. We could d o th at.

[W her eup on, a recess was ta ken, at th e conclusion of which the su bcom mittee proceede d in executive session.]