Mr. STEED. We hear a lot of cynical talk that sometimes makes you wonder if there is anybody left with the capacity to appreciate our country and its heritage. Mr. FISH. There are many millions of Americans that share your feeling. Mr. STEED. There is a proposed language change "To be expended as the President may determine notwithstanding the provisions of this or any other Act." Why do you make the recommendation? Mr. FISH. We feel this is our authority for the procurement and hiring. Again, it doesn't have its separate authorizing legislation which is before the Congress right now. This is the same language we have had every other year prior to last year. Mr. STEED. The personnel for this function are not processed through the normal sources that other Government personnel are. Mr. FISH. That is true. They serve at the pleasure of the President. However, because we perform that administrative function for the group we do work and are beginning to work closer with Civil Serve. Not that they are Civil Service employees, but following some of those guidelines. Mr. STEED. Mr. Miller and I are cosponsors of legislation that is designed to provide authorization for this whole Executive Office area so that points of order won't create such a problem. Is this language overed in that proposed legislation? If that becomes law, will you be in the clear without having this language in the bill? Mr. FISH. Mr. Chairman, I have before me here the text of the etter from the President to the Speaker dated March 26, 1975. I am ot really too sure of whether that is the same language. But the language included in that section 105 (c) would give us the authority hat we would need. That is my understanding. Mr. STEED. If that developed, you would not need this? Mr. FISH. That is correct. Mr. HOUGH. That is correct, sir. Mr. STEED. In other words, this would be in a sense a stopgap until the other legislation moves and becomes law. Mr. FISH. This would be that stopgap, and it is the stopgap we have tal every year except last year, Mr. Chairman. Mr. HOUGH. It was deleted last year by the Senate in contemplation of similar legislation passing, but it failed somewhere along the line and left us without this authority this year. Mr. STEED. On the matter of language that deals with the entertament expense to be accounted for solely on the President's cerfation, how much was spent on that last year out of this budget? Mr. FISH. Basically, the main item there is food, and that is for Crial functions, for the First Family, for state dinners. We approxiTate that at about $130,000. But of that about $55,000 is direct reimement from the State Department and the first family for the food that they consume. Mr. STEED. Are the White House official functions at the same level y compared with 2 years ago or 5 years ago? Mr. Fish. I would say that they seem to run about a certain level, gir, because we have been able to hold to this figure pretty much zour budget. Mr. STEED. It has been my understanding that a great many of the White House functions are generated from the State Department because of State's international activities. Is this where a lot of that expense comes from? Mr. FISH. Heads of state and that type of thing. But that is a direct reimbursement from the State Department account. The official functions in this budget pays for the other foreign dignitaries, Members of Congress, representatives of the labor and business organizations and Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. Mr. STEED. This is separate and apart from the private family activities conducted on the upper floors. This is the official main floor activities whether it is a formal state dinner or other official functions? Mr. FISH. For official functions, yes, sir. There are three categories for that food. One is the state function, the other is the official function, and third is the First Family. So the First Family actually reimburses this account here for the a food they consume. Mr. STEED. You say that the amount you have asked for the transition period is one-fourth of the fiscal year 1976 budget. So what we have here in effect dollarwise is 15 months at the same level of funding? Mr. FISH. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. Mr. STEED. So for practical purposes what we actually have is a 15-month fiscal year? Mr. FISH. That is true. Mr. STEED. Most of it is in wages anyway isn't it? Mr. FISH. That is right. As compared to, say, a national park function, say activities at Yellowstone where your peak visitation is during the summertime and you need more than just 25 percent. Mr. STEED. I noticed a newspaper article recently where you had inade a number of improvements or repairs in the White House through public donations. Of course we have a commission that supervises that. Could you give us a brief summary of what has been taking place in the last year? Mr. Fisu. I will be pleased to, Mr. Chairman. As a matter of fact I brought for the committee a copy of the report of the Committee for the Preservation of the White House from 1969 to 1974. That was the basis for the newspaper articles. Additionally I have the report of the Committee for the Preservation of the White House for the years 1964 to 1969. Mr. STEED. Good. Mr. FISH. It does indicate in here what has been the White House acquisition funds for each year, the name of the donors, and the receipts from the White House Historical Association, the book sales and that type of thing, and how it was spent. Mr. STEED. I think it would be well to make it a part of the record. Mr. FISH. I would like very much if I could, Mr. Chairman. Mr. STEED. We will be glad to have it. I think we will make this acquisition fund part of the record because it is one more source of reference for people interested in this sort of thing. Hopefully this will also be additional recognition of the folks who make contributions and it might encourage others to do likewise. [The information follows:] Donor Ware Foundation.... White House acquisition fund—1974 Tour section-EPS Rudolf Wunderlich_ Lawrence Fleischman. George Monardo_ John G. Vackrinos____. Mr. and Mrs. Stanley Sax.. Anonymous National Historic Foundation (for Map Room) Janet Neff Charitable Trust (for Blue Room). Richard King Mellon Foundation (for Green Room). Amount $10,000 45 12, 500 12,500 3,000 100 100 10, 000 50,000 25,000 35, 000 James Hoban Alexander__ Mrs. Julian Ganz____ Clement E. Conger (contributions in lieu of honoraria for lectures). White House Historical Association: Book sales‒‒‒‒‒‒ First ladies medals. 50 200 6, 440 100, 000 7,596 Richard King Mellon Foundation (for Green Room) George Monardo....... Janet Neff Charitable Trust (for Blue Room) – White House Historical Association: First ladies medals___ Presidential plates.... Presidential medals__ Mrs. E. M. Boehm....... Amount $15,000 5, 679 10, 000 18,000 500 270,000 Family Circle Magazine-Crewel project---. Clement E. Conger (contributions in lieu of honoraria for lectures). Total 906, 856 Donor White House acquisition fund—1972 Mra Thurmond Clarke (for Vermeil Room)‒‒‒‒‒ Mr. and Mrs. Joseph M. Segel (for Yellow Oval Room). Mr. and Mrs. Frederick K. Weyerhaeuser (Yellow Oval Room). harles E. Merrill Trust.. Mr. Enid A. Haupt.......... Rhard King Mellon Foundation (for Green Room). Mr. and Mrs. Richard Scaife. Anonymous donor.......... Mr W. Tapley Bennett, Jr.. Anonymous... Laris and Bessie Adler Foundation (for Red Room)___ 25,000 Cement E. Conger (contributions in lieu of honoraria for lectures) – 1,750 Mr. and Mrs. H. V. Neuhaus (for Yellow Oval Room). 24, 812 Mrs. Charles Payson__. Lerner Foundation Mr. Leo J. Margolin__ Miss Mary Brooks- Harsco Corp___ Mr. and Mrs. Donald D. Dayton___ Richard King Mellon Foundation (for Green Room) Morris and Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation_ National Society of Interior Designers_. National Historical Foundation for Map Room) Mr. and Mrs. Frederick K. Weyerhaeuser (for Yellow Oval Room) 25, 645 1, 200 7,500 5, 000 500 8, 500 15, 000 50, 000 5,000 9, 500 100,000 15, 000 Mrs. Lorraine Miller Collins.......... White House Historical Association: First ladies medals_ Book sales Anonymous Donor Mr. and Mrs. Joseph M. Segel (for Yellow Oval Room) 147, 269 51, 277 10, 000 234, 000 10, 000 Mr. STEED. Do you have offers of donations that involve items that are not acceptable or that the Commission for some reason or other doesn't think are suitable? Mr. FISH. There are some, yes, sir, but we are able to have a little dialog with the donors generally so that we don't have it officially offered if it isn't accepted. I might, if I may, mention what those dollars have gone for over the last 4 or 5 years. 1. Vermeil Room-completely refurbished; furniture, paintings, draperies, rug, chandelier, sconces. 2. China Room-completely refurbished; furniture, painting, draperies, rug, chandelier, sconces. 3. Diplomatic Reception Room (except mantel)—additional furniture, new rug, chandelier. 4. Map Room (except woodwork and mantel)-completely refurbished; furniture, draperies, rug, chandelier, sconces, paintings. 5. Green Room-major refurbishing; furniture, paintings, draperies, rug, upholsteries, new ornamental plaster ceiling ornament. 6. Blue Room-major refurbishing; furniture, paintings, new mantel, draperies, rug, upholsteries, wallpaper, ornamental plaster, and new cornices. 7. Red Room-major refurbishing; furniture, upholsteries, paintings, rug, sconces. 8. Improved lighting fixtures, chandeliers, rugs, and so forth throughout the White House (acquisition lists of chandeliers and rugs by rooms enclosed). I might point out if we did not have these dollars then we would have to somehow do this work to maintain the quality and appearance of the White House. So I think it has been a very effective item for us to have that amount of dollars donated. Mr. STEED. I think it is well and good we have this additional recognition for these fine people who donated and I hope it will continue to encourage this type of thing. Mr. FISH. I hope so. Mr. STEED. As time goes on that need is going to continue. A building that has this many visitors must of necessity endure a certain amount of wear and tear, and it does increase the upkeep cost. Does any of the activity covered here involve anything on the grounds surrounding the White House? Mr. FISH. No, sir, it does not. The grounds surrounding the White House are taken care of by the National Park Service and handled in the National Park Service budget. Mr. STEED. Next year is an election year. We have had this policy of painting the White House every 4 years. Are we due for that again now! Mr. FISH. I am very pleased, Mr. Chairman, you brought up the question because in this transition budget we neglected frankly to put in the dollars needed to paint it. We were thinking more in terms of the normal fiscal year cycle. If I may, we goofed. The price of painting you know had been about $25,000 for a number of years, and it was a prestigious contract. Four years ago it was up to about $64,000. We estimate now it is about $100,000. So we would hope to be able to submit a budget amendment, if we could, to get that so that we could do the painting in August and September 1976. That is when we would normally be doing it. Mr. STEED. We would very much prefer you do that, because obnously time is of the essence on this particular job. Mr. FISH. It certainly is, and that is the time of the year you really have to do it. Mr. STEED. Is this contract still considered a prestigious thing that zables you to get pretty keen competition to do it? Mr. FISH. It does not appear to be that. As I say, for four or five tracts some years ago it stayed at a low level. Then on the last contract it seemed to go up. So we would estimate it would continue on that same rate of increase. |