69–006 

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 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
2 

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-inlaw, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brotherin-law, sister-in-law, stepfather, stepmother, stepson, stepVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:17 Jun 05, 2008 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR679.XXX HR679

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
3 

daughter, 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. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
4 

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. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
5 

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 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
6 

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. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING