and we assign him to that office. Then we bring in one of the new men the field service to replace him. We then train him in the protective work.
Necessarily, you have to have a nucleus. So there are also a number of men in supervisory positions who have been on the White House detail for 20 or more years.

Mr. Rankin.

But your theory is that they should be able to be trained so that they could be shifted to any part of the service?

Mr. Rowley.

That is right. And it has this advantage: Once they are trained in Presidential protection, if for some reason the White House detail gets instructions that the President is going to fly to one of the cities, or some hamlet across the country, and we do not have time to get an agent aboard a plane and send him there, or maybe the Air Force has no plane available to transport him there, we pick up the phone and call an agent at the nearest place--and here is an agent that has been trained, he knows the mechanics of the operation, and the procedure, and he goes to work, and effectively lays out the arrangements.

Representative Ford.

Mr. Chairman, this Commission Exhibit No. 1028, which shows the budget and the positions, I think is helpful. But in the submission of the budget by the Secret Service to the Congress, they have a greater breakdown of their personnel setup.
I think it might be wise to include what they submitted to the Congress, or something comparable to it, because I think it is far more complete than this.

Mr. Rowley.

That is correct.

Representative Ford.

And I think it might be helpful for the record.

Mr. Rowley.

We do not disclose the number of men on Presidential protection.

Representative Ford.

I understand that. But you are familiar with the presentation you might submit for your overall budget, including personnel?

Mr. Rowley.

Right.

Representative Ford.

Can that not be submitted for our record, just as it is submitted to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations?

Mr. Rowley.

It is a matter of public record. But whether or not the tentative one, the 1966 can be, before the Budget Bureau sees it, is something else again.

Representative Ford.

I would not expect that it would.

Mr. Rowley.

No; but the others can be.

Mr. Rankin.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask leave to secure a copy of that and insert it in the record.

The Chairman.

It may be admitted when you obtain it.

Representative Ford.

May I ask one other question, and then I have to leave?
In listening to the testimony, Chief Rowley, sometime ago, I was a little concerned--more than a little, I should say--with the process by which the man in charge of a Presidential trip undertakes his relationship with the local law enforcement agencies.
As I recall the testimony, the man in charge has contact with the local police and the sheriff's department and any other local law enforcement agency. But the impression that I gained was that there was no clear delineation of responsibility. They sat around, they talked about what this local law enforcement agency would do and what another one would do.
But it seems to me that a more precise checklist, a clear understanding, would be wholesome and better.
What is your reaction on that?

Mr. Rowley.

Well, No. 1, in our revised Manual on Presidential Protection, this is part of the thing.
Now, I would hesitate to prepare a checklist for everybody, because you may be embarrassed to find it in the press some day, because of the activity of reporters around the police.
I do not want to downgrade any police department, but this is what happens through no fault of theirs. There are variations in different cities.
Now, I ,think what you are referring to, Mr. Congressman, is that they complained they did not have a sufficient notice of the route and so forth, so they could make the proper preparations. That is true. Neither did we have sufficient notice. Because they were going back and forth trying to establish---until they were told they had 45 minutes allotted to them for this route, and first our man had to go, which is a natural operation, to look over the route to

« Previous | Next »

Found a Typo?

Click here

Last Update: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 21:56:34 CET