United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

B-317252 

January 30, 2009 

The Honorable Debbie Wasserman Schultz 

Chair 

Subcommittee on Legislative Branch Appropriations 

Committee on Appropriations 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Robert B. Aderholt 

Ranking Minority Member 

Subcommittee on Legislative Branch Appropriations 

Committee on Appropriations 

House of Representatives 

Subject: United States Capitol Police—Deployment of Personnel 

In a letter dated September 23, 2008, the Subcommittee requested our opinion on 

whether the United States Capitol Police (USCP) complied with the applicable 

statute, 2 U.S.C. § 1978, when it deployed personnel to Texas following Hurricane Ike. 

Letter from Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Chair, and Tom Latham, Former Ranking 

Member, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative Branch, 

to Gene Dodaro, Acting Comptroller General, GAO, Sept. 23, 2008. The 

Subcommittee also asked that we review USCP deployments conducted since 2005 

and determine whether those deployments complied with the statute. Id. 

The deployment, which began on September 14, 2008, occurred without USCP 

providing prior notification to the Committees on Appropriations as generally 

required under 2 U.S.C. § 1978. Id. We conclude that because the deployment was 

conducted for the purpose of responding to an emergency, which is one of the 

exceptions to the notification provisions, USCP was not required under the statute to 

provide prior notification to the Committees. With regard to the second question, 

USCP does not keep records of deployments for which it deems notification not 

required, and thus we were unable to conduct a general review of these deployments 

for compliance with the statute. 

Our practice when issuing opinions is to obtain the views of the relevant agency to 

establish a factual record and to establish the agency’s legal position on the subject 

matter of the request. GAO, Procedures and Practices for Legal Decisions and 

 
Opinions, GAO-06-1064SP (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 2006), available at 

www.gao.gov/legal/resources.html. In this regard, USCP provided its legal views and 

relevant factual material. Letter from Gretchen E. DeMar, General Counsel, USCP, to 

Susan A. Poling, Managing Associate General Counsel, GAO, Dec. 12, 2008 (DeMar 

Letter). We also spoke with USCP officials about the issues raised. In response to 

our request, the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) of the House of 

Representatives also provided its views regarding the circumstances surrounding the 

deployment. Letter from Timothy P. Blodgett, Administrative Counsel, Office of the 

Chief Administrative Officer, to Susan A. Poling, Managing Associate General 

Counsel, GAO, Re: B-317252, Dec. 5, 2008 (Blodgett Letter). 

BACKGROUND 

On September 10, 2008, the Governor of Texas declared an emergency in anticipation 

of Hurricane Ike making landfall near Galveston and moving inland toward Houston. 

DeMar Letter, at 2. On the same day, President Bush declared an emergency to allow 

federal assistance to the state. In preparation for the hurricane, the CAO Business 

Continuity and Disaster Recovery team began monitoring 13 congressional districts 

in order to adequately assess district office functionality after the hurricane’s landfall. 

Blodgett Letter, at 1. The Office of the CAO states that it was working in conjunction 

with the General Services Administration to keep the impacted offices functioning. 

Id. On September 11, Galveston and low lying areas of Houston were ordered 

evacuated. Id. Hurricane Ike came ashore as a category 2 hurricane in the Galveston 

area on or about September 12, causing considerable damage to the Southeast Texas 

area. Id. 

Late on Friday, September 12, the U.S. House of Representatives Sergeant-at-Arms 

contacted the Assistant Chief of Police, USCP, at his home to inform the Assistant 

Chief that Congressman Nick Lampson had requested that the Office of the CAO 

deploy its Disaster Recovery Team and mobile communications vehicles to support 

the congressional district office in assisting constituents in Houston during the 

emergency.1

 DeMar Letter, at 2--3. These vehicles were to be used to provide 

telephone and electric connectivity to the district offices impacted by the hurricane 

so that those offices could conduct business. Blodgett Letter, at 3. The Sergeant-atArms requested that USCP provide liaison support with local law enforcement 

organizations and protection and security for congressional personnel and 

equipment. DeMar Letter, at 3. 

 

1

 After the September 11 terrorist attacks, the U.S. House of Representatives and the 

U.S. Senate purchased emergency communications and support vehicles to enable 

Congress to continue its legislative functions should relocation from Capitol 

buildings and grounds be necessary. DeMar Letter, at 2. According to USCP, the 

Capitol Police Board had also directed, on a case-by-case basis, that USCP provide 

liaison support, protection, and security during an escort of such vehicles in the event 

that relocation is necessary. Id. 

B-317252 
Subsequently, the Assistant Chief spoke to a member of the CAO staff who indicated 

that the CAO personnel would like to depart on Sunday, September 14. Id. The 

Assistant Chief then directed the USCP Dignitary Protection Division to assign two 

agents to provide escort liaison, protection, and security services. Id. 

The communications vehicles and USCP escort departed Washington, D.C. on 

September 14. Upon arrival in Houston, the agents established a liaison with the 

Houston Police Department and worked with U.S. Air Force security police at 

Ellington Air Force Base, which was to be used to set up temporary office space for 

impacted congressional districts. Id. at 3--4. The agents returned to Washington with 

the U.S. House of Representatives vehicles and personnel on Tuesday, September 23. 

ANALYSIS 

Hurricane Ike Deployment

The first question presented is whether the USCP complied with 2 U.S.C. § 1978 when 

it deployed personnel to Texas following Hurricane Ike. Generally, the authority of 

the USCP to make arrests and otherwise enforce the laws is limited to the Capitol 

buildings and grounds as well as the surrounding area. 2 U.S.C. § 1967. At issue here 

is 2 U.S.C. § 1978, which provides that— 

“[t]he Chief of the Capitol Police may not deploy any officer outside of 

the areas established by law for the jurisdiction of the Capitol Police 

unless— 

(1) the Chief provides prior notification to the 

Committees on Appropriations of the House of 

Representatives and Senate of the costs anticipated to be 

incurred with respect to the deployment; and 

(2) the Capitol Police Board gives prior approval to the 

deployment.” 

2 U.S.C. § 1978(a). 

Subsection (b) of section 1978 provides, however, that these requirements for 

notification and prior approval do not apply to deployments for— 

“any of the following purposes: 

(1) Responding to an imminent threat or emergency. 

(2) Intelligence gathering. 

Page 3 B-317252 
(3) Providing protective services.” 

 2 U.S.C. § 1978(b). 

USCP did not notify the Committees of the deployment or its anticipated cost prior to 

the Texas deployment. On September 13, 2008, however, the day before the 

deployment, the Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms sent an e-mail to the Committee on 

Appropriations for the House of Representatives and the Committee on House 

Administration, advising the Committees of the planned deployment. This e-mail did 

not include a cost estimate. Because USCP did not provide the prior notification, the 

issue for our consideration is whether the deployment falls within one of the 

subsection (b) exceptions. USCP states that it believes that the circumstances 

constituted an emergency under the statute and, therefore, USCP was not required to 

provide prior notification of anticipated costs. 

USCP states specifically that the “deployment was in response to an emergency 

declared by the President and the Governor of Texas in anticipation of the landfall of 

Hurricane Ike in the Galveston area and its projected path toward Houston.” DeMar 

Letter, at 4. USCP notes that at the time of the deployment, the state of civil order 

and law enforcement services in the affected area was unknown. Id. at 3. What was 

known was that “a number of Member offices had been rendered uninhabitable by 

Hurricane Ike.” Id. The purpose of the deployment was to respond “to the 

emergency conditions that existed . . . in the aftermath of Hurricane Ike.” Id. at 2. 

USCP acknowledges that the phrase “responding to an imminent threat or 

emergency” is not defined, and notes that determining what constitutes an emergency 

depends upon “the facts of the particular event.” Id. at 5. USCP points out further 

that, in assessing its potential response to an emergency situation, USCP considers 

whether there is a direct nexus to its primary mission. It states that circumstances 

covered by the exception would likely include those requiring an “immediate 

response to an unknown or known highly volatile circumstance.” Id. USCP 

concludes that the deployment at issue was covered by the emergency exception. 

Based on our understanding of the circumstances and the language of the statute, 

“responding to an imminent threat or emergency,” we find USCP’s conclusion that it 

was not required to notify the Appropriations Committees of the anticipated costs to 

be a reasonable one. The clear purpose of the deployment was to respond to the 

declared emergency2

 by protecting critical assets and personnel that were needed to 

restore the operations of congressional offices. The record shows that USCP’s 

actions were taken in response to a specific and time-sensitive request by a member 

of the Capitol Police Board in support of the Office of the CAO’s efforts to provide 

electricity, telephone services, and network connectivity requested by a Member of 

Congress whose local office had been rendered useless by the hurricane. According 

to USCP, Congressman Lampson was on site, assisting his constituents, throughout 

 

2

 The Subcommittee also asked whether an “emergency” declared by the CAO is a 

covered exception under the statute. In response to our request, CAO stated that, in 

fact, the CAO did not declare an emergency. Blodgett Letter, at 3. 

B-317252 
the time that the agents were deployed to Texas.3

 Moreover, staff in some areas were 

banned from even going to their work site to determine if the office was functional. 

Blodgett Letter, at 3. In addition to providing security and protection, USCP agents 

were needed to interact with other law enforcement officials who themselves were 

operating in a disaster area under extremely difficult circumstances. 

As USCP points out, the statute does not contain a definition of the phrase 

“responding to an imminent threat or emergency,” and USCP has not attempted to 

define the phrase in implementing guidance or instructions. The legislative history 

does not explain what Congress intended regarding what constitutes an emergency. 

For example, should this exception be interpreted as limited to deployments in which 

immediate action is necessary to prevent the loss of life or property, or are 

deployments to provide assistance in the aftermath of an event also covered as a 

response to an emergency? We generally will not object to an agency’s reasonable 

interpretation of a statute it is charged with administering. See 71 Comp. Gen 310 

(1992). Under these circumstances, we have no basis to object to USCP’s view that 

the deployment was conducted for the purpose of “responding to an emergency” 

under 2 U.S.C. § 1978, and thus the requirement for prior notification did not apply to 

this deployment. 

Nevertheless, we think that USCP, in the future, should advise the Committees of the 

costs of emergency deployments as soon as practicable. Congress, in section 1978, 

has made clear its interest in having information on the costs of deployments, but 

also made clear that the delivery of information should not interfere with an effective 

response to an emergency. USCP might accommodate both interests by providing 

the information as early as practicable, even if that is after the fact. 

USCP Deployments Since 2005

The Subcommittee also asked GAO to review USCP deployments conducted since 

2005 to determine whether those deployments complied with the notice requirement 

of the statute. As part of developing the record in this matter, we asked USCP to 

identify all deployments conducted since 2005 and, for each deployment, provide a 

copy of the notice provided to the relevant Committees. Letter from Susan A. Poling, 

Associate General Counsel, GAO, to Gretchen DeMar, General Counsel, USCP, 

Nov. 12, 2008, at 2. We requested further that, if prior notice was not given, USCP 

identify the authority for the deployment and the circumstances supporting it. Id. 

In response to our request, USCP provided copies of notification letters for 

17 deployments conducted since 2005. We have enclosed a list identifying those 

deployments. These include a deployment to Mississippi after Hurricane Katrina, 

deployment of officers to assist the United States Park Police on the National Mall to 

supplement the D.C. summer crime emergency declared by the Metropolitan Police, 

and deployment of officers to execute an arrest warrant outside the U.S. Capitol 

 

3

 USCP is authorized “to protect, in any area of the United States, the person of any 

member of Congress.” 2 U.S.C. § 1966. 

Page 5 B-317252 
grounds but within the District of Columbia for fraud related to Wright Patman 

Congressional Federal Credit Union. DeMar Letter, at Attachments B, K, and M. 

Most of the documented examples are deployments for ceremonial reasons, for 

example, funerals, Police Week activities, or prayer breakfasts and conferences. 

However, USCP acknowledges that there are other activities or deployments for 

which it believes notice was not required. USCP told us that it does not maintain a 

record for these activities or deployments and could not provide any information 

about the deployment or activity, including its purpose, date, or cost. These activities 

appear to fall into two categories: deployments covered by an exception under the 

statute, and activities conducted “off of Capitol Hill” but that should not be 

understood to constitute a “deployment” triggering the approval and notification 

requirements under the statute. See DeMar Letter, Attachment A, Memorandum from 

Chief Terrance W. Gainer to the Capitol Police Board, Sept. 20, 2005 (2005 

Memorandum). The first category includes, for example, deployments to respond to 

emergencies, as well as deployments to provide protective services to Members 

outside of the Capitol and surrounding area. USCP advises us that it is common for 

officers to assist other local law enforcement entities in emergency situations, and 

notification is not required under the statute. Because prior approval and notification 

is not required for these deployments and there are no other requirements to 

document such activities, USCP states that it does not maintain records of these 

deployments. 

The other category consists of activities that USCP does not believe are encompassed 

by the term “deployment,” and thus prior notification would not be required for these 

activities. In the 2005 memorandum, USCP attempted to address the scope of the 

term “deployment” by identifying specific activities that it believed should not be 

considered a deployment for purposes of the statute. It appears, however, that the 

memorandum was not fully adopted or implemented, and there currently is not a 

common understanding of the scope of this term as used in 2 U.S.C. § 1978. With the 

memorandum, USCP sought written approval from the Capitol Police Board to allow 

officers “to conduct USCP business off Capitol grounds” for a wide range of activities 

without obtaining prior approval from the Board or providing prior notification to the 

Committees. The activities listed include “training and conferences,” funerals of 

USCP employees or former employees or “line of duty deaths for law enforcement or 

fire personnel” in the immediate Washington metropolitan area, Police Memorial 

Week activities, participation in Inaugural, State of the Union, and national security 

event planning and operations that affect Congress, and “competitions and judging of 

competitions that validate USCP training and special operations.” Id. The 

memorandum listed other activities that USCP considers deployments and thus, for 

these activities, prior notice is to be provided. These included “[l]aw [e]nforcement 

assistance to other agencies wherein our police powers are exercised,” participation 

in funerals for non-USCP individuals, and competitions or judging of competitions 

“that are not related to validating [USCP] programs.” Id. USCP states that this 

memorandum was approved by the Capitol Police Board, but not by the Committees. 

DeMar Letter, at 5. 

B-317252 
USCP characterizes this memorandum as seeking to establish a “formalized process 

for deployment approval and notification.” DeMar Letter, at 5. When this process did 

not receive the approval of the Committees, however, it appears that USCP decided 

not to follow the terms of the memorandum, but instead chose to provide notification 

when USCP was ”requested to be off Capitol grounds to perform functions that do 

not have a direct nexus to the mission of the Department.” Id. at 5--6. It is unclear, 

on this record, whether or how this “direct nexus” criterion relates to the categories 

of activities outlined in the memorandum. Further complicating matters, USCP states 

that in “the last few years, the Committees have verbally communicated to the USCP 

that local funeral attendance by the Ceremonial Unit, agency training, or participation 

in local events related to Police Week generally do not require formal notification to 

the Committees.” DeMar Letter, at 6. Again, it is unclear how these categories of 

activities relate to those in the memorandum or whether this informal agreement 

essentially supersedes the memorandum. Regardless, without records of the various 

activities or deployments undertaken, we cannot assess whether USCP should have 

given prior notice to the Appropriations Committees or whether the activities or 

deployments are within the scope of 2 U.S.C. § 1978(a) or whether they properly fall 

under the exceptions in 2 U.S.C. § 1978(b). 

CONCLUSION 

The USCP deployment to Texas in September 2008 was covered by the emergency 

exception to the general statutory requirement to provide notification of anticipated 

costs prior to a deployment outside of the areas established by law for the 

jurisdiction of the Capitol Police. There appears to be some uncertainty, however, of 

USCP’s interpretation of section 1978. We recommend, therefore, that USCP 

establish and consistently implement a written policy on what constitutes “a 

deployment outside of the areas established by law for the jurisdiction of the Capitol 

Police” and what constitutes an emergency under the statute. USCP should, in the 

future, also provide the Committees cost information on emergency deployments as 

early as practicable, even if it is after the deployment. Finally, we recommend that 

USCP advise the Committees of its interpretation of the statute and ask the 

Committees what additional information the Committees might require from USCP 

for oversight purposes. 

Sincerely yours, 

Gary L. Kepplinger 

General Counsel 

Page 7 B-317252 
Enclosure 

B-317252 
ENCLOSURE 

 

United States Capitol Police 

Deployment Notifications since 2005 

Event Date Cost Purpose 

September 9, 2005 $296,000 Assist in the response and recovery from Hurricane Katrina 

May 13, 2006 $4,800 Funeral of Fairfax County Police Detective Vicky Armel 

May 13--16, 2006 $9,000 Police Week Activities 

May 20, 2006 $4,800 Funeral of Fairfax County Master Patrol Officer Michael 

Garbarino 

May 26, 2006 * Funeral of Baltimore City Officer Anthony Byrd 

June 7, 2006 * Make-a-Wish Foundation 

June 8, 2006 * National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast and Conference 

July 21, 2006 $12,000 Violent Crime Task Force 

July 27--September 30, 2006 $80,000 Assist United States Park Police on the National Mall during 

Summer Crime Emergency 

November 13, 2006 * U.S. Attorney’s Office Awards Ceremony 

April 3, 2007 ** Execute Arrest Warrant 

May 8, 2007 * Police Week Activities 

June 15, 2007 * Presentation of Colors at 2007 National Hispanic Prayer 

Breakfast 

June 22, 2007 * Funeral of Howard County Police Officer Scott Wheeler 

July 12, 2007 $225 The Humane Society of Charles County Careers with 

Animals 

October, 15, 2008 * National Law Enforcement Officer’s Memorial Fund’s 17th

Annual Wreath Laying Ceremony 

November 13, 2008 * U. S. Attorney’s Office Awards Ceremony 

* The notification letters stated that no additional duty was required during this event 

** The notification letter did not include cost information 

Page 9 B-317252