I believe the definition says that, "attempt" as used herein means "such-and-such, and 'conspiracy' " likewise. However, I am not sure but what we are really talking about something that would never happen. In the event there were an actual attempt to forcibly enter a protected area, certainly your misdemeanor exists, but it would be subsumed into an assault, a battery, or an attempt on the life of, or some such thing. Is that not correct? I mean the lesser offense would be subsumed into the greater offense. Mr. McBRIEN. Yes, sir. Mr. DANIELSON. Several years ago someone drove a small truck into one of the gates of the White House. I know they have reinforced the gates since then, but someone did and I believe actually succeeded in penetrating the barrier. That would be an attempt unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly to enter the zone of protection. I am sure that if he was prosecuted it was not under the misdemeanor that we are providing for here but under a far more serious statute. I do not know what it would have been-destruction of Government property or some such thing-but it would be in the category of a felony anyway. I think that is what you would run into here in most instances. If there actually were an attempt, automatically you would have a more serious offense. Where this would be useful actually would not be so much on the attempt as it would be in trying to get somebody out of a zone of protection who refuses to leave-he is just being obnoxious. Is that not basically what you have in mind? Mr. McBRIEN. Yes, sir. Mr. DANIELSON. And then your agent has a right to arrest him on a misdemeanor charge, even though he may not have done a lot of harm, but he is there willfully and knowingly and in a zone of protection which is marked by a cordon, stanchion, or whatever it is you gentlemen use. Is that not really what you are thinking about here? Mr. BECHTLE. As you alluded to earlier, Mr. Chairman, that is exactly it; and the coverage is just not there with anyone other than the President. Mr. DANIELSON. I can see what you are driving at. We also have jurisdiction over tort liability, and I think that is one of your con cerns. Mr. BECHTLE. Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is. Mr. DANIELSON. I used to be a law enforcement officer for the Government myself, and I know that although you have duties to perform you are sometimes a little bit reluctant to do them because some sourpuss is going to file a lawsuit against you, and the agony of going through that is most disproportionate to what you are involved in. I do not see a problem here; but very frankly, Mr. Kindness, I do want the Justice Department's opinion. We will ask for it. We will tell them to expedite it too, because I know you want this expedited, gentlemen. I want to move into a couple of other things, if I may. There are a few definitions here that bother me just a little bit. We talk about families. How is "family" defined anywhere? Immediate family is the word. Mr. McBRIEN. "Immediate family" is not defined in the statute anywhere. Mr. DANIELSON. If we are going to protect immediate families we ought to know who in the world they are. Maybe, Mr. Kindness, we should ask our very excellent counsel to sit down and work with Justice and work with you, gentlemen. Let us define "families" so we know what we are talking about. I have read sections 1752, 3056, and Public Law 93-31 as amended; and somebody has just blithely put the word family in there. Heaven knows-do you go out to third cousins, or where do you stop? I do not know. Mr. McBRIEN. I believe in practice, Mr. Chairman, that the immediate family has not extended beyond grandchildren of a President. Mr. DANIELSON. This is all right. There was one reference one place to minor children under the age of 16. Now, that does not include grandchildren maybe. As long as we are trying to clean up this law, let us do it right. I request and would appreciate your sending us what you can as to what you folks refer to as family and what you perceive as being the desired limitations on family. We may and may not adopt them, but at least we will have something then to work with. Could you help us on that? Mr. MCBRIEN. Certainly, Mr. Chairman. We would be pleased to. Mr. DANIELSON. I suppose in the interests of 1981 we ought to quit talking about the President or his surviving wife and call it the President or surviving spouse. One of these days we are going to have a lady President. While I have long believed that the pronoun his in statutes denotes the feminine, neuter, and masculine, I am not always supported by my friends on that point. I have another one: In section 3056 the penalty is a fine of not more than $300 or imprisonment for not more than 1 year. In section 1752 the penalty is $500 or imprisonment for 6 months. I do not think it makes a lot of difference, but let us make it the same. We have two laws here. I do not know why we do not make it the same. Is there any reason as to why we should have it all mixed up so some Supreme Court Justice is going to throw it out? Mr. McBRIEN. No, Mr. Chairman. Indeed, we discussed that this morning. Mr. DANIELSON. All right. We will take that up in markup and have a uniform penalty. Every time they tinker with this law they change it a little bit but they do not make conforming changes, so let us see if we can come up with one that holds water. I have one other point that I think is of interest. This is grammatical. In the proposed new section (f), in the latter portion, you refer to people who are "persons authorized to receive the protection of the United States." The laws do not provide for that at all; they authorize the Secret Service to provide protection to these people. The authority goes to the Secret Service and not to the recipient of the protection. We will probably do a little grammatical leap-frogging here and put this in line so that it says the same all the way through. I do not think you would have any objection. Mr. McBRIEN. We would certainly defer to the wisdom of the subcommittee on that, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DANIELSON. Happily, my colleague who is with us today, Mr. Kindness, and I are the acknowledged nitpickers of this committee; and we will try to make that so it holds water. Mr. McBRIEN. That is what keeps the legal profession alive, Mr. Chairman. We would all be unemployed without that. Mr. DANIELSON. Frankly, there is nothing in the law that authorizes anybody to receive protection; there is only authority for you to provide protection. There is one other item. There is some reference in here to other agencies. I know that you can call in the military-the Coast Guard and the Defense Department personnel-under some circumstances, but is there anyone else? Mr. McBRIEN. During Presidential campaign years, Mr. Chairman, the Secret Service, with the Treasury Department's wholehearted backing, using the offices of special agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, the Customs Service, and on occasion special agents in the Criminal Enforcement Division of the Internal Revenue Service to assist them. Mr. DANIELSON. In other words, you supplement the Secret Service? Mr. MCBRIEN. Yes, sir. Mr. DANIELSON. Personnel-wise, talking about payroll, are they then transferred temporarily to the Secret Service? Are they Secret Service agents at that time? Mr. McBRIEN. They are performing duties to assist the Secret Service staff, not Secret Service staff. Mr. DANIELSON. All right; that is important. I think then, sir, that we must make clear that it is not just Secret Service agents who are protected. I do not know what words we are going to use, but let us bring them in. If you have a Treasury agent or some other variety who is assisting you, he should have the same protections at that time, I believe, as you people have. The violation of his operation by someone should also be a misdemeanor, as it would be for yourselves. The point I want to understand is: You do utilize this supplementary manpower from time to time? Mr. McBRIEN. Yes-very definitely. Mr. DANIELSON. We can cover that, I think. I do not have any other questions. [Brief discussion with counsel.] Mr. DANIELSON. Counsel, you ask your question; I do not see your point. Mr. SHATTUCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are provisions in section 1752 that we are not addressing today, nor are they amended by the proposed amendment in the bill. They are found in paragraphs 2, 3, and 4, of subsection (a) of 1752 and have to do with other actions-having to do with impeding and disrupting the orderly conduct of Government, obstructing ingress and egress, and also in 4 the physical violence against any person or property in the building or area. I am sure this is related to protection, but could you amplify just how this occurs and what the extent of the effect of the change of language as provided in this bill would be in connection with these other provisions of the section? Mr. McBRIEN. Not having litigated under those specific provisions, Mr. Shattuck, I cannot specify with absolute clarity in each instance what would be contained within each one. Mr. DANIELSON. Let me interrupt if I may. I know that Mr. Kindness and I both have to respond to a vote in just a minute or 2 I think we have covered the bulk of this. Could you respond to counsel's question in writing? You are going to give us some more information anyway. If you have not had the experience just tell us, but that may be one of the things we will have to have some help from Justice on. I know the point, and I am for it, but let us find out what we are talking about. Mr. McBRIEN. Yes, sir. Mr. DANIELSON. Lastly, the Secretary is authorized to designate by regulations these places, areas, and so on. Do you do that following the Administrative Procedures Act? Mr. McBRIEN. Yes, sir. The regulations are in the Code of Federal Regulations, title 31. Mr. DANIELSON. Then regulations are actually promulgated telling the world what you are doing here? Mr. MCBRIEN. Yes, sir. Mr. DANIELSON. On the matter of definition again, in addition to families you protect staff or offices. How far does "staff"' go? Mr. McBRIEN. The individual staff members are not protected, but we are speaking about those offices which contain them. Mr. DANIELSON. All right. Thank you. If you have the President occupying a suite of rooms in a building, for example; it is summertime; it is August; it is California; and the President has a suite out in the Century Plaza Hotel; but he has got other rooms, because he has to have places for his colleagues and associates; do you protect those rooms as well-the staff rooms? Mr. McBRIEN. I believe Mr. Bechtle can describe a little more clearly than I the precision of it, but those rooms which are in any juxtaposition to the area occupied by the President of course-since he may have access to them or the people from them are going to be having access to him-need to come within the protected zone for the President's own protection. So yes, but there may be some exception. Mr. DANIELSON. Mr. Bechtle? Mr. BECHTLE. It is basically, Mr. Chairman, exactly as Mr. McBrien has said. We set up the zone, and then basically it is authorized personnel coming into that zone. If it is a suite of rooms on a floor of a hotel- Mr. DANIELSON. You may take over the whole floor or the whole wing? Mr. BECHTLE. Yes. Basically, we will shut off the wing and say, "This is the secure zone." Mr. DANIELSON. You do not make a separate regulation on that particular floor, but you have a general regulation which provides, I assume, that when you mark it off with a cordon or whatever it may be that that is deemed to be a zone? Mr. BECHTLE. The agent is present there; it is not a cordon. It is there, and it is established. Mr. DANIELSON. Mr. Kindness, do you have other questions? I am only thinking of the time and the vote. Mr. KINDNESS. I would like to ask that if we have some additional questions we might submit them. Mr. DANIELSON. I am sure you gentlemen would help on that. Mr. KINDNESS. And the responses would be included in the record, for example, on the effect on the budget, if any. Mr. DANIELSON. That is right. I can assure you that we will move very quickly on this because I know it is a matter of importance to you, but there are a few little areas where we need a little more information. Mr. DANIELSON. We have to run. We do not have enough people to do markup on these bills anyway. Thank you very much for your attendance. We will appreciate a prompt response which will in turn spur prompt action on our part, and we will feel free to call on you if we need more help. Meanwhile, we have excellent staff on both sides of the aisle-Mr. McMahon, Mr. Shattuck, and Mr. Harrison-so feel free to contact them as well. Mr. McBRIEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement of Mr. McBrien follows:] |