TITLE: B-307529, United States Capitol Police--Waiver of Erroneous Salary Payments, March 28, 2006
BNUMBER: B-307529
DATE: March 28, 2006
*******************************************************************************************
B-307529, United States Capitol Police--Waiver of Erroneous Salary Payments, March 28, 2006

   B-307529

   March 28, 2006

   The Honorable Trent Lott

   Chairman

   Committee on Rules and Administration

   United States Senate

   Subject: United States Capitol Police--Waiver of Erroneous Salary Payments

   Dear Mr. Chairman:

   This responds to your request of March 6, 2006, for our legal opinion with
   regard to the waiver of erroneous salary payments to an employee of the
   United States Capitol Police (USCP). Specifically, you asked us:

   (1)  Is the waiver authority a "function, duty, or authority" of a
   disbursing officer that was transferred to the Capitol Police Chief as a
   result of Public Law 108-7?

   (2)  If not, then does the waiver authority remain with the Secretary of
   the Senate and the Speaker of the House?

   (3)  If the waiver authority remains with the Secretary of the Senate and
   the Speaker of the House, then what is the procedure by which they
   exercise this authority?

   This issue arose because the USCP appears to have made salary payments to
   an employee in violation of 5 U.S.C. sect. 3110.[1]

   As we explain below, waiving erroneous payments is not a statutory
   function, duty, or authority of a disbursing officer. The authority to
   waive erroneous payments must be explicit in statute. Therefore, the
   passage of Public Law 108-7 did not transfer the waiver authority for USCP
   employees, and the Speaker of the House and the Secretary of the Senate
   have concurrent authority to waive erroneous payments to USCP employees.
   To avoid implementation problems, we recommend that Congress consider
   addressing the issue of the concurrent waiver authority to reduce
   duplication of effort and the potential for conflicting results.

   BACKGROUND

   Since 1974, the Secretary of the Senate and the Speaker of the House have
   had the authority to waive the collection of erroneous payments of salary
   or allowances for employees of the Senate and the House, respectively. 2
   U.S.C. sections 130c, 130d. Under this statutory authority, the Secretary
   and the Speaker may waive erroneous payments if collection would be
   against equity and good conscience and not in the best interests of the
   United States. 2 U.S.C. sections 130c(a), 130d(a).

   Prior to 2003, USCP employees were considered employees of either the
   House of Representatives or the Senate and their salaries were disbursed
   by either the Chief Administrative Officer of the House or the Secretary
   of the Senate. See, e.g., Pub. L. No. 107-68, 115 Stat. 560, 575 (Nov. 12,
   2001). Therefore, before 2003, USCP employees who received an erroneous
   payment could apply for waiver to either the Speaker of the House or the
   Secretary of the Senate, depending on whether the Chief Administrative
   Officer or the Secretary disbursed their salary.

   In 2003, Congress designated the Chief of Police as the single disbursing
   officer for the USCP. Pub. L. No. 108-7, div. H, title I, sect. 1018, 117
   Stat. 11, 366-69 (Feb. 20, 2003), 2 U.S.C. sect. 1907. This provision
   stated:

   "Any statutory function, duty, or authority of the Chief Administrative
   Officer of the House of Representatives or the Secretary of the Senate as
   disbursing officers for the Capitol Police shall transfer to the Chief of
   the Capitol Policeas the single disbursing officer for the Capitol
   Police."

   2 U.S.C. sect. 1907(a)(2). The same statute also granted the Chief the
   authority to hire USCP employees, who are no longer considered to be House
   or Senate employees. 2 U.S.C. sect. 1907(e).

   ANALYSIS

   (1) Is the waiver authority a "function, duty, or authority" of a
   disbursing officer that was transferred to the Capitol Police Chief as a
   result of Public Law 108-7?

   In designating the Chief of Police as the single disbursing officer for
   the USCP, Congress transferred all statutory functions, duties, and
   authorities of the Chief Administrative Officer and the Secretary "as
   disbursing officers for the Capitol Police." 2 U.S.C. sect. 1907(a)(2).
   However, the authority to waive erroneous payments is not a function of a
   disbursing officer.

   Congress designated by statute the Chief Administrative Officer of the
   House as a disbursing officer, and, as such, he is responsible for drawing
   funds from the Treasury, disbursing these funds for the compensation and
   mileage allowances of Members of the House of Representatives, and
   accounting for these funds. 2 U.S.C. sect. 80. The Secretary of the
   Senate's role as disbursing officer for the Senate is also recognized by
   statute, and her duties include drawing funds from the Treasury,
   disbursing these funds for the compensation of Senators and Senate
   officers, and accounting for these funds. Act of Feb. 10, 1854, ch. 11,
   sect. 1, 10 Stat. 267.

   There is no governmentwide statutory definition of the term "disbursing
   officer," probably because "it is self-definitive." Romney v. United
   States, 167 F.2d 521, 526 (D.C. Cir. 1948). Generally, it means "an
   officer who is authorized to disburse funds of the United States." Id.
   Congress has, in several instances, defined the duties of disbursing
   officers in statute. For example, in the executive branch, disbursing
   officials are authorized to deposit funds in and draw funds from the
   Treasury, disburse funds as provided by a certified voucher, and examine
   vouchers to determine if they are in proper form, certified, approved, and
   computed correctly on the facts certified. 31 U.S.C. sections 3322(a),
   3325(a). In the judicial branch, disbursing officers are authorized to
   disburse funds in accordance with certified payment requests and examine
   payment requests to ensure that they are in proper form, certified, and
   approved. 28 U.S.C. sect. 613(a). Likewise, the disbursing officer for the
   Library of Congress is authorized to disburse funds in accordance with
   certified vouchers and examine the vouchers to ensure that they are in
   proper form, certified, and approved. 2 U.S.C. sect. 142d.

   In his history of financial management in the federal government,
   Professor Harvey C. Mansfield states that disbursing is "a clerical task
   whose virtues are accuracy, fidelity, and dispatch." He notes that
   disbursing officers should not be asked to settle questions of law, as the
   position of disbursing officer was not intended to involve discretion.
   Harvey C. Mansfield, The Comptroller General 123 (1939).

   Since waiver of a claim amounts to relinquishing a claim of the government
   for recovery of funds, it requires specific statutory authority. B-253582,
   Dec. 13, 1993. Absent a clear statutory basis, no official is authorized
   to waive a claim on behalf of the United States. Id. The statutes we
   identified that establish the duties of disbursing officers do not also
   contain the authority to waive the collection of erroneous payments. See 2
   U.S.C. sect. 80 (Chief Administrative Officer of the House); 10 Stat. 267
   (Secretary of the Senate); 31 U.S.C. sections 3322(a), 3325(a) (executive
   branch); 28 U.S.C. sect. 613(a) (judicial branch); and 2 U.S.C. sect. 142d
   (Library of Congress). We do note that as part of the Secretary of the
   Senate's broader authorities as an official of the Senate, the Secretary
   does have the authority to waive erroneous payments, but the authority is
   separate and distinct from her authority as a disbursing officer. 2 U.S.C.
   sect. 130c.

   For most of the government, waiver authority does not rest with its
   disbursing officers, but with the head of the agency.[2] 5 U.S.C. sect.
   5584(a)(2). In the uniformed services, claims for erroneous payments
   similarly may be waived by the Secretary of the relevant service or by the
   Department of Defense.[3] 10 U.S.C. sect. 2774(a). Thus, waiver authority
   is not a function of being a disbursing officer.

   Therefore, the waiver of erroneous payments is not a function held by a
   disbursing officer, and we find no indication that Congress intended to
   transfer the waiver authority to the Chief of Police when it transferred
   the disbursing functions, duties, and authorities of the Secretary and the
   Chief Administrative Officer to the Chief of Police.

   (2) If not, then does the waiver authority remain with the Secretary of
   the Senate and the Speaker of the House?

   While the Chief of Police does not have the authority to waive the
   collection of erroneous payments for USCP employees, the question remains
   as to whether this authority rests with the Speaker and the Secretary. In
   transferring the disbursing authority to the Chief of Police, Congress
   included a provision that stated that:

   "Any reference in any law or resolution before February 20, 2003, to funds
   paid or disbursed by the Chief Administrative Officer of the House of
   Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate relating to the pay and
   allowances of Capitol Police employees shall be deemed to refer to the
   Chief of the Capitol Police."

   2 U.S.C. sect. 1907(a)(1). If we apply section 1907(a)(1) to the House
   waiver provision, section 130d, we would insert "Chief of the Capitol
   Police" into that part of the provision relating to funds paid or
   disbursed by the Chief Administrative Officer of the House. So modified,
   section 130d would read as follows:

   "A claim of the United States against a person arising out of an erroneous
   payment of any pay or allowances . . . to an officer or employee whose pay
   is disbursed by [the Chief Administrative Officer of the House of
   Representatives] the Chief of the Capitol Police . . . may be waived in
   whole or in part by the Speaker of the House." (Substitute text
   italicized.)

   Similarly, if we apply section 1907(a)(1) to the Senate provision, section
   130c, it would read as follows:

   "A claim of the United States against a person arising out of an erroneous
   payment of any pay or allowances . . . to an officer or employee whose pay
   is disbursed by [the Secretary of the Senate] the Chief of the Capitol
   Police . . . may be waived in whole or in part by the Secretary of the
   Senate." (Substitutetext italicized.)

   Thus, under the plain meaning of the statute, both the Speaker of the
   House and the Secretary of the Senate have the authority to waive
   erroneous payments to USCP employees.[4] Since USCP employees are no
   longer designated as either House or Senate employees, they now have two
   venues in which to apply for waiver. While such an interpretation does
   present certain implementation problems, we must presume that Congress
   "says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says."
   Connecticut Nat'l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253-4 (1992).

   Congressional control over the compensation of USCP employees is not
   uncommon. For example, the Speaker of the House and the President Pro
   Tempore of the Senate have the authority to issue joint regulations for
   the entire legislative branch, including the USCP, regarding the
   garnishment of employees' paychecks and the designation of beneficiaries
   for moneys due to deceased employees. 5 U.S.C. sections 5520a(j)(1)(B),
   5582(a)(2). Furthermore, separating waiver authority from disbursing
   authority provides a measure of control at the USCP. Therefore, we see no
   reason to reject a literal application of 2 U.S.C. sect. 1907 to sections
   130c and 130d. Accordingly, USCP employees may apply to either the
   Secretary or the Speaker for waiver of erroneous payments.

   (3) If the waiver authority remains with the Secretary of the Senate and
   the Speaker of the House, then what is the procedure by which they
   exercise this authority?

   One of the vestiges of the divided USCP payroll is the divided waiver
   authority, which we have concluded continues today. USCP employees may
   apply to either the Secretary of the Senate or the Speaker of the House
   for the waiver of erroneous payments. As set out in the waiver statutes,
   applications for waiver are investigated by the Chief Administrative
   Officer of the House and by the Financial Clerk of the Senate in their
   respective chambers. 2 U.S.C. sections 130c(a), 130d(b). The Comptroller
   General may also investigate waiver applications in the Senate, if the
   payment is in excess of $1,500. 2 U.S.C. sect. 130c(a). Both the Speaker
   and the Secretary have the authority to promulgate rules and regulations
   under the waiver statutes, which would apply if a USCP employee applied
   for waiver of an erroneous payment. 2 U.S.C. sections 130c(f), 130d(g).

   We recommend that Congress consider addressing the concurrent waiver
   authority to reduce the duplication of effort and the potential for
   conflicting results or forum shopping. Congress could do so either
   legislatively or administratively, through an agreement between the
   Speaker and the Secretary as to how to handle waiver applications from
   USCP employees.

   CONCLUSION

   The transfer of the disbursing authority for USCP employees from the
   Secretary of the Senate and the Chief Administrative Officer of the House
   to the Chief of Police did not also transfer the authority to waive
   collection of erroneous payments, because Public Law 108-7 only
   transferred the functions, duties, and authorities of the Secretary and
   the Chief Administrative Officer as disbursing officers, and waiver of
   erroneous payments is not a function of a disbursing officer. Authority to
   waive erroneous payments made to USCP employees remains with the Speaker
   of the House and the Secretary of the Senate. To avoid implementation
   problems, we recommend that Congress consider addressing this issue to
   ensure equitable and efficient consideration of USCP employees'
   applications for waiver.

   Sincerely yours,

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

   ------------------------

   [1] Section 3110, commonly known as the antinepotism statute, prohibits
   the payment of an individual who is appointed to a position in the federal
   government by a relative.

   [2] In the executive branch, heads of agencies are statutorily authorized
   to waive the collection of erroneous payments under $1,500. 5 U.S.C. sect.
   5584(a)(2). Authority to waive erroneous payments in excess of $1,500
   rests with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), who
   has delegated this authority to agency heads. 5 U.S.C. 5584(a)(1), (h)(2);
   OMB Directive, Determination with Respect to Transfer of Functions
   Pursuant to Public Law 104-316 (Dec. 17, 1996). Prior to the 1996
   transfer, the authority to waive erroneous payments in excess of $1,500
   rested with the Comptroller General. See Pub. L. No. 104-316, sect.
   103(d), 110 Stat. 3826, 3828-30 (Oct. 19, 1996).

   [3] OMB similarly delegated its authority to waive erroneous payments in
   excess of $1,500 to members of the uniformed services to the Department of
   Defense. OMB Directive, Determination with Respect to Transfer of
   Functions Pursuant to Public Law 104-316 (Dec. 17, 1996).

   [4] This interpretation is supported by another provision that ensured
   continuity in the rules regarding pay of USCP employees following the
   transfer of the disbursing authority. Congress included a provision that
   stated that "any such individuals serving as employees of the Capitol
   Police as of February 20, 2003, shall be subject to the same rules
   governing rights, protections, pay, and benefits in effect immediately
   before such date until such rules are changed under applicable laws or
   regulations." 2 U.S.C. sect. 1907(e)(2). In the broadest sense, the
   availability to apply for waiver is a rule governing "rights, protections,
   pay, and benefits," and Congress sought to preserve such rules.
   Furthermore, Congress has extended the ability to apply for a waiver of
   erroneous payments to the vast majority of federal employees, and there is
   no indication that Congress intended to remove this right from USCP
   employees.