[House Report 112-648]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
112th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 112-648
======================================================================
REPORTING EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENT ACT
_______
September 10, 2012.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Smith of Texas, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 6189]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 6189) to eliminate unnecessary reporting
requirements for unfunded programs under the Office of Justice
Programs, having considered the same, report favorably thereon
without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 1
Background and Need for the Legislation.......................... 2
Hearings......................................................... 2
Committee Consideration.......................................... 2
Committee Votes.................................................. 2
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 2
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 3
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................ 3
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 4
Advisory on Earmarks............................................. 4
Section-by-Section Analysis...................................... 4
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 4
Purpose and Summary
H.R. 6189, the ``Reporting Efficiency Improvement Act,''
(hereinafter ``the Bill'') will eliminate statutory
requirements for the Attorney General to make annual reports
regarding two unfunded, dormant programs that previously were
administered by the Office of Justice Programs in the
Department of Justice.
Background and Need for the Legislation
The Government Performance and Results Modernization Act of
2010 requires agencies to identify plans and reports that may
be outdated or duplicative, and to ``consult with the
congressional committees that receive the plans and reports . .
. to determine whether those plans and reports are no longer
useful to the committees and could be eliminated. . . .''\1\
The Department of Justice recommends eliminating both of the
reports covered by the Bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\111 P.L. 352, Sec. 11(b), codified at 31 U.S.C. Sec. 1125(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ``DNA Identification Act of 1994'' authorized
appropriations for the Attorney General to make grants to
states ``to develop or improve the capability to analyze [DNA]
in a forensic laboratory.''\2\ The reporting requirements
eliminated by the Bill require states receiving grants to
report to the Attorney General how the funds are spent; the
Attorney General, in turn, must make summary reports annually
to Congress.\3\ These reporting requirements are no longer
necessary because Congress has not made any appropriations for
these grants since FY2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\103 P.L. 322, Sec. 210302(c), codified at 42 U.S.C. Sec. 3796kk.
\3\See 42 U.S.C. Sec. 3796kk-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ``Police Corps Act'' authorized appropriations to
increase the number of police officers on community patrol,
including through educational assistance.\4\ The reporting
requirement eliminated by the Bill requires the Director of the
Office of the Police Corps and Law Enforcement Education at the
Department of Justice to file annual reports documenting the
program's status.\5\ This reporting requirement is no longer
necessary because Congress has not made any appropriations for
these grants since FY2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\See 103 P.L. 322, Title XX, Subtitle A, codified at 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 14091.
\5\See 42 U.S.C. Sec. 14102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearings
The Committee on the Judiciary held no hearings on H.R.
6189.
Committee Consideration
On August 1, 2012, the Committee met in open session and
ordered the bill H.R. 6189 favorably reported without
amendment, by voice vote, a quorum being present.
Committee Votes
In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that there
were no recorded votes during the Committee's consideration of
H.R. 6189.
Committee Oversight Findings
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the
descriptive portions of this report.
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures
Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does
not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax
expenditures.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with
respect to the bill, H.R. 6189, the following estimate and
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, August 28, 2012.
Hon. Lamar Smith, Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 6189, the
``Reporting Efficiency Improvement Act.''
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark
Grabowicz, who can be reached at 226-2860.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Elmendorf,
Director.
Enclosure
cc:
Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Ranking Member
H.R. 6189--Reporting Efficiency Improvement Act.
As ordered reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary
on August 1, 2012.
H.R. 6189 would eliminate two annual reports that the
Department of Justice (DOJ) is currently required to submit to
the Congress. The reports are related to DOJ programs that have
not been funded for many years, so the department has not
prepared those reports recently. Thus, CBO estimates that
implementing H.R. 6189 would have no significant effect on DOJ
spending. Enacting the bill would not affect direct spending or
revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.
H.R. 6189 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 Mark Grabowicz.
The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Performance Goals and Objectives
The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R.
6189 will eliminate reporting requirements for two unfunded,
dormant programs that previously were administered by the
Office of Justice Programs in the Department of Justice.
Advisory on Earmarks
In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, H.R. 6189 does not contain any
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff
benefits as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of Rule XXI.
Section-by-Section Analysis
The following discussion describes the bill as reported by
the Committee.
Sec. 1. Short Title. Establishes that the Act may be cited
as the ``Reporting Efficiency Improvement Act.''
Sec. 2. Elimination of Reports for Unfunded Programs Under
the Office of Justice Programs. Section 2(a) eliminates the
reporting requirements for grants made under the ``DNA
Identification Act of 1994,'' at 42 U.S.C. Sec. 3796kk-5(b).
Section 2(b) eliminates the reporting requirement for grants
made under the ``Police Corps Act,'' at 42 U.S.C. Sec. 14102.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets and
existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):
OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL AND SAFE STREETS ACT
OF 1968
* * * * * * *
TITLE I--JUSTICE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT
* * * * * * *
PART X--DNA IDENTIFICATION GRANTS
* * * * * * *
SEC. 2406. REPORTS.
[(a) Reports to Attorney General.--] Each State or unit of
local government which receives a grant under this part shall
submit to the Attorney General, for each year in which funds
from a grant received under this part is expended, a report at
such time and in such manner as the Attorney General may
reasonably require which contains--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(b) Reports to Congress.--Not later than 90 days after the
end of each fiscal year for which grants are made under this
part, the Attorney General shall submit to the Speaker of the
House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the
Senate, a report that includes--
[(1) the aggregate amount of grants made under this
part to each State or unit of local government for such
fiscal year; and
[(2) a summary of the information provided in
compliance with subsection (a)(1).]
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 200113 OF THE POLICE CORPS ACT
[SEC. 200113. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
[(a) In General.--Not later than April 1 of each year, the
Director shall submit a report to the Attorney General, the
President, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the
President of the Senate.
[(b) Contents.--A report under subsection (a) shall--
[(1) state the number of current and past
participants in the Police Corps program, broken down
according to the levels of educational study in which
they are engaged and years of service they have served
on police forces (including service following
completion of the 4-year service obligation);
[(2) describe the geographic, racial, and gender
dispersion of participants in the Police Corps program;
and
[(3) describe the progress of the Police Corps
program and make recommendations for changes in the
program.]