[House Report 110-679]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



110th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     110-679

======================================================================



 
 UNITED STATES CAPITOL POLICE ADMINISTRATIVE TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS ACT 
                                OF 2008

                                _______
                                

  June 4, 2008.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, from the Committee on House Administration, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 5972]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on House Administration, to whom was referred 
the bill (H.R. 5972) to make technical corrections to the laws 
affecting certain administrative authorities of the United 
States Capitol Police, and for other purposes, having 
considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment 
and recommend that the bill do pass.

                 PURPOSE AND SUMMARY OF THE LEGISLATION

    Over the years, Congress has enacted numerous provisions 
governing the administration of the U.S. Capitol Police (USCP). 
Some of those past provisions, including some that addressed 
single purposes without examining the full structure of the 
laws governing the USCP, contain drafting errors, conflict with 
previous laws, or have other technical flaws. Such flaws can 
confuse the interpretation of the law and deplete the limited 
resources of the agency by creating uncertainty for the Capitol 
Police, its officers and employees about what Congress 
intended.
    In order to address this problem, the Committee recommends 
passage of the United States Capitol Police Administrative 
Technical Corrections Act of 2008 (H.R. 5972). Working with the 
Chief of Police, Phillip D. Morse, Sr.; his General Counsel, 
Gretchen DeMar; and others, the Committee has developed this 
bill to make technical corrections, repeal obsolete or 
duplicative provisions and clarify others without substantive 
policy changes.
    This bill, focused on the USCP's administrative 
authorities, is by no means comprehensive. Provisions 
addressing other aspects of the USCP, and the Capitol Police 
Board, constitute a hodgepodge in need of technical correction 
in some cases, and in need of thorough policy evaluation in 
others. The Committee will continue working with the USCP, 
Capitol Police Board, and the Committee's Senate counterpart to 
identify and effect positive change for the agency and for its 
``customer,'' the Congress. For the moment, the Committee 
recommends H.R. 5972 as a timely and necessary step in the 
right direction and urges the House to enact it.

                        COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

    On May 7, 2008, the Committee considered H.R. 5972, 
introduced on May 6, 2008, by the Chairman, Representative 
Robert A. Brady of Pennsylvania, with the co-sponsorship of the 
Ranking Minority Member, Representative Vernon J. Ehlers of 
Michigan and the Chairman of the Capitol Security Subcommittee, 
Representative Michael Capuano of Massachusetts. By voice vote, 
the Committee ordered H.R. 5972 reported to the House with a 
favorable recommendation and without amendment. No recorded 
votes were taken during the Committee's consideration of the 
bill.

                         ANALYSIS OF H.R. 5972

Section 1. Short title: ``The United States Capitol Police 
        Administrative Technical Corrections Act of 2008.''

Section 2. Administrative authorities of the Chief of the Capitol 
        Police

    (a) Technical correction to outdate language creating the 
position of USCP Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) and Chief's 
responsibility for that office. Clarifies the Chief's 
responsibility as USCP certifying officer. Clarifies provisions 
relating to the Capitol Police Board, the Chief of Police, the 
Committee on House Administration and the Senate Committee on 
Rules and Administration regarding certain USCP personnel 
actions and organizational changes; conforms language to the 
requirements of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995.
    The Committee wishes to emphasize that nothing in this 
subsection (or elsewhere in this bill) should be construed to 
alter or supersede any Capitol Police Board policy, directive, 
or operating procedure that may require the Chief to notify the 
Board of certain personnel actions or organizational changes.
    The Committee further wishes to emphasize that nothing in 
this subsection (or anywhere else in this bill) should be 
construed to diminish the application of the federal anti-
nepotism law (5 U.S.C. 3110) to officials of the Capitol 
Police. The Committee remains mindful that a covered official 
of the prior USCP administration may have appointed a relative 
to a position in violation of that statute. Following enactment 
of H.R. 5972, as it does today, federal law will continue to 
prohibit the appointment or promotion of a ``relative,'' which 
term includes a:

        * * * father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, 
        uncle, aunt, first cousin, nephew, niece, husband, 
        wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, 
        daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, 
        stepfather, stepmother, stepson, stepdaughter, 
        stepbrother, stepsister, half brother or half sister. 5 
        U.S.C. 3110(a)(3).

    The Committee wishes to emphasize that nothing in this 
subsection (or elsewhere in the bill) is intended to alter the 
effect of past certifications or to expose the person serving 
as Chief of Police on the date of enactment of H.R. 5972 to 
personal or professional liability for certifications preceding 
his incumbency.
    (b) Technical correction to provision authorizing deposit 
and expenditure of funds received by USCP as reimbursement for 
law-enforcement assistance of other federal, state or local 
agencies.
    Subsection 2(b) would make this technical correction to the 
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2001, effective as if included 
in the original Act. The Committee recommends this effective 
date in order to validate the deposit and use of reimbursements 
received during the interim if consistent with the Act either 
before or after enactment of this technical correction.
    (c) Clarifies the authority of the Chief to waive claims 
for erroneous payments of pay and allowances to USCP personnel.
    Subsection 2(c) would make this technical correction to the 
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2003, effective as if 
included in the original Act. The Committee recommends this 
effective date in order to validate waivers granted during the 
interim if consistent with the Act either before or after 
enactment of this technical correction.
    (d) Correction to provision authorizing certain advance 
payments to require written determinations by the Chief, 
notification to authorizing committees, and to correct the 
error concerning duration of the authority.
    Subsection 2(d) would make this technical correction to the 
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2008, effective as if 
included in the original Act. The Committee recommends this 
effective date in order to validate any advance payments made 
during the interim if consistent with the Act either before or 
after enactment of this technical correction.
    The Committee concurs with language in the House 
Appropriations Committee's report to accompany H.R. 2771, 110th 
Cong., the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2008, 
suggesting that the Chief should not approve an advance payment 
unless a discount offered exceeds the cost of the funds 
required per the rate published by the United States Treasury 
(I TFM 6-8040.40). The Committee also urges the Capitol Police 
to take maximum advantage of the services offered by FEDLINK, 
the Library of Congress service that helps numerous federal 
agencies save money on their procurements.
    (e) Technical correction to provision requiring prior 
notice to authorizing committees of certain out-of-jurisdiction 
deployments.

Section 3. General Counsel to the Chief of Police and the United States 
        Capitol Police

    (a) Clarifies duties and responsibilities of General 
Counsel to the Chief of Police and the Capitol Police.
    (b) Technical and conforming amendments to related 
provision.

Section 4. Clarification of authorities regarding certain personnel 
        benefits

    (a) Technical correction to current statute prohibiting 
certain payments to terminated USCP personnel.
    (b) Technical corrections to statute authorizing 
compensation in the form of additional pay or compensatory time 
off for officers and employees exempt from the Fair Labor 
Standards Act of 1938.
    (c) Technical correction to statute governing suspensions 
from duty.
    Subsection 4(d) would make this technical correction to the 
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2003, effective as if 
included in the original Act, but that it shall not apply with 
respect to any overtime work performed prior to the enactment 
of this technical correction. The Committee recommends this 
effective date in order to validate overtime payments made 
during the interim if consistent with the Act before or after 
enactment of this technical correction.

Section 5. Other miscellaneous technical corrections

    (a) Repeals outdated provision related to establishment of 
the position of USCP Chief Administrative Officer.
    (b) Repeals outdated provision requiring USCP officers to 
purchase their own uniforms.
    (c) Technical corrections to references to USCP officers 
related to the House and Senate office buildings.
    (d) Repeal of duplicate provision related to USCP-Library 
of Congress police merger.
    (e) Technical corrections to provisions regarding the 
position and authority of Chief of Police.
    Subsection 5(e) would make this technical correction to the 
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2003, effective as if 
included in the original Act. The Committee recommends this 
effective date in order to preclude question about the 
authority or actions of the Chief if consistent with the Act 
either before or after enactment of this technical correction.

             MATTERS REQUIRED UNDER THE RULES OF THE HOUSE

Constitutional authority

    Clause 3(d)(1) of House rule XIII requires each committee 
report on a public bill or joint resolution to include a 
statement citing the specific constitutional power(s) granted 
to the Congress on which the Committee relies for enactment of 
the measure under consideration.
    The Committee cites the legislative power broadly granted 
to Congress under Article I. The Congress has since 1828 
employed the Capitol Police as an instrumentality of its 
exercise of exclusive jurisdiction over the District 
constituting the seat of Government. The bill H.R. 5972 is 
necessary to the proper and effective exercise of that 
jurisdiction. The Committee finds this legislation clearly 
within constitutional authority granted to the Congress by 
Article I.

Committee votes

    Clause 3(b) of House rule XIII requires the results of each 
recorded vote on an amendment or motion to report, together 
with the names of those voting for and against, to be printed 
in the committee report.
    No recorded votes were taken during the Committee's 
consideration of H.R. 5972.

Congressional Budget Office estimate

    Clause 3(c)(3) of House rule XIII requires the report of a 
committee on a measure which has been approved by the committee 
to include a cost estimate prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 403 of the CBA, 
if timely submitted. The Director submitted the following 
estimate:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                       Washington, DC, May 8, 2008.
Hon. Robert A. Brady,
Chairman, Committee on House Administration,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
completed the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 5972, the United 
States Capitol Police Administrative Technical Corrections Act 
of 2008.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Deborah Reis.
            Sincerely,
                                         Robert A. Sunshine
                                   (For Peter R. Orszag, Director).
    Enclosure.

H.R. 5972--United States Capitol Police Administrative Technical 
        Corrections Act of 2008

    H.R. 5972 would make technical corrections to federal laws 
that govern the administrative activities of the U.S. Capitol 
Police. The bill would have no effect on police operations, and 
CBO estimates that enacting the legislation would have no 
impact on discretionary spending, direct spending, or revenues.
    H.R. 5972 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and 
would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal 
governments.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Deborah Reis. 
The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

Federal mandates

    Section 423 of the CBA requires a committee report on any 
public bill or joint resolution that includes a federal mandate 
to include specific information about such mandates. The 
Committee states that H.R. 5972 imposes no federal mandates.

Preemption clarification

    Section 423 of the CBA requires a committee report on any 
public bill or joint resolution to include a committee 
statement on the extent to which the measure is intended to 
preempt state or local law. The Committee states that H.R. 5972 
is not intended to preempt any state or local law.

Oversight findings

    Clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII requires each committee report 
to contain oversight findings and recommendations required 
pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of House rule X. The Committee has 
general oversight responsibility for the U.S. Capitol Police.
    In the exercise of its oversight of the Capitol Police, the 
Committee finds that the presence of sundry obsolete, 
duplicative, and inconsistent legislative provisions has 
impaired the efficient administration of the Capitol Police in 
the past and will continue to do so in the future without 
congressional action. The Committee recommends enactment of 
H.R. 5972 as reported to the House.

Statement of general performance goals and objectives

    Clause 3(c)(4) of House rule XIII requires committee 
reports to include a statement of general performance goals and 
objectives. The Committee believes that enactment of H.R. 5972 
will advance the agency's goal of improving its day-to-day 
administration--an effort in which this Committee and the 
Congress as a whole has invested significant sums in recent 
years.

Congressional ``earmarks''

    Clause 9 of House rule XXI requires committee reports on 
public bills and resolutions to contain an identification of 
congressional ``earmarks,'' limited tax benefits, limited 
tariff benefits, and the names of requesting Members. The bill 
contains no such items either as introduced or as reported to 
the House.

Congressional Accountability Act applicability

    Section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act 
of 1995 (CAA) (Pub. L. 104-1) requires each report on a public 
bill or joint resolution relating to terms and conditions of 
employment or access to public services or accommodations to 
describe the manner in which the legislation apply to the 
Legislative Branch.
    The bill makes technical corrections to existing laws by 
repealing obsolete or duplicate provisions and correcting 
drafting errors in others in order to clarify their meaning. As 
such, the bill makes no change to the terms and conditions of 
employment, access to public services, or accommodations in the 
Legislative Branch.

                                  
