[House Report 106-663]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
106th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 106-663
======================================================================
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA RECEIVERSHIP ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2000
_______
June 12, 2000.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Burton of Indiana, from the Committee on Government Reform,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 3995]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Government Reform, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 3995) to establish procedures governing the
responsibilities of court-appointed receivers who administer
departments, offices, and agencies of the District of Columbia
government, having considered the same, report favorably
thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as
amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
I. Summary of Legislation...........................................3
II. Background and Need for the Legislation..........................3
III. Legislative Hearings and Committee Actions.......................4
IV. Committee Hearings and Written Testimony.........................4
V. Explanation of the Bill..........................................4
VI. Compliance with Rule XI..........................................5
VII. Budget Analysis and Projections..................................5
VIII.Cost Estimate of the Congressional Budget Office.................5
IX. Specific Constitutional Authority for this Legislation...........6
X. Committee Recommendations........................................6
XI. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act; Public Law 104-4, Sec. 423.........7
XII. Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) Section 5(b)......7
XIII.Changes in Existing Law..........................................7
The amendment is as follows:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``District of Columbia Receivership
Accountability Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. SPECIAL RULES APPLICABLE TO RECEIVERS WITH RESPONSIBILITIES
OVER DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT.
(a) In General.--Each District of Columbia receiver shall be subject
to the requirements described in section 3.
(b) District of Columbia Receiver Defined.--In this Act, a ``District
of Columbia receiver'' is any receiver or other official who is first
appointed by the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia or the Superior Court of the District of Columbia during 1995
or any succeeding year to administer any department, agency, or office
of the government of the District of Columbia.
SEC. 3. REQUIREMENTS DESCRIBED.
(a) Promoting Financial Stability and Management Efficiency.--Each
District of Columbia receiver who is responsible for the administration
of a department, agency, or office of the government of the District of
Columbia shall carry out the administration of such department, agency,
or office through practices which promote the financial stability and
management efficiency of the government of the District of Columbia.
(b) Cost Control.--Each District of Columbia receiver who is
responsible for the administration of a department, agency, or office
of the government of the District of Columbia shall ensure that the
costs incurred in the administration of such department, agency, or
office (including personnel costs of the receiver) are consistent with
applicable regional and national standards.
(c) Use of Practices to Promote Efficient and Cost-Effective
Administration.--Each District of Columbia receiver who is responsible
for the administration of a department, agency, or office of the
government of the District of Columbia shall carry out the
administration of such department, agency, or office through the
application of generally accepted accounting principles and generally
accepted fiscal management practices.
(d) Preparation and Submission of Budget.--
(1) Consultation with mayor and chief financial officer.--In
preparing the annual budget for a fiscal year for the
department, agency, or office of the government of the District
of Columbia administered by the receiver, each District of
Columbia receiver shall consult with the Mayor and Chief
Financial Officer of the District of Columbia.
(2) Submission of estimates.--After the consultation required
under paragraph (1), the receiver shall prepare and submit to
the Mayor, for inclusion in the annual budget of the District
of Columbia for the year, the receiver's estimates of the
expenditures and appropriations necessary for the maintenance
and operation of the department, agency, or office for the
year.
(3) Treatment by mayor and council.--The estimates submitted
under paragraph (2) shall be forwarded by the Mayor to the
Council for its action pursuant to sections 446 and 603(c) of
the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, without revision but
subject to the Mayor's recommendations. Notwithstanding any
provision of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, the
Council may comment or make recommendations concerning such
estimates but shall have no authority under such Act to revise
such estimates.
(4) Exceptions.--This subsection shall not apply with respect
to--
(A) any department, agency, or office of the
government of the District of Columbia administered by
a District of Columbia receiver for which, under the
terms of the receiver's appointment by the court
involved, the Mayor and the Council may revise the
annual budget; or
(B) the District of Columbia Housing Authority
receiver appointed during 1995.
(5) Effective date.--This subsection shall apply with respect
to fiscal year 2001 and each succeeding fiscal year.
(e) Annual Fiscal, Management, and Program Audit.--
(1) In general.--An annual fiscal, management, and program
audit of each department, agency, or office of the government
of the District of Columbia administered by a District of
Columbia receiver shall be conducted by an independent auditor
selected jointly by the receiver involved (or the receiver's
designee) and the Mayor (or the Mayor's designee), and each
District of Columbia receiver shall provide the auditor with
such information and assistance as the auditor may require to
conduct such audit.
(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect
to--
(A) any department, agency, or office of the
government of the District of Columbia administered by
a District of Columbia receiver for which, under the
terms of the receiver's appointment by the court
involved, audits are conducted by an auditor selected
jointly by the parties to the action under which the
receiver was appointed; or
(B) the District of Columbia Housing Authority
receiver appointed during 1995.
(f) Procurement.--
(1) In general.--In carrying out procurement on behalf of the
department, agency, or office of the government of the District
of Columbia administered by the receiver, each District of
Columbia receiver--
(A) shall obtain full and open competition through
the use of competitive procedures; and
(B) shall use the competitive procedure or
combination of competitive procedures which is best
suited under the circumstances of the procurement.
(2) Exceptions.--
(A) Alternative methods for certain procurement.--
Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a District of Columbia
receiver may use alternative methods to carry out
procurement if--
(i) the amount involved is nominal;
(ii) the public exigencies require the
immediate delivery of the articles or
performance of the service involved;
(iii) the receiver certifies that only one
source of supply is available; or
(iv) the services involved are required to be
performed by the contractor in person and are
of a technical and professional nature or are
performed under the receiver's supervision and
paid for on a time basis.
(B) Housing authority.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply
with respect to the District of Columbia Housing
Authority receiver appointed during 1995.
SEC. 4. CLARIFICATION OF APPLICABILITY OF ANTI-DEFICIENCY ACT.
Nothing in subchapter III of chapter 13 of title 31, United States
Code may be construed to waive the application of the provisions of
such subchapter which apply to officers or employees of the District of
Columbia government to any District of Columbia receiver.
I. SHORT SUMMARY OF LEGISLATION
H.R. 3995 directly addresses concerns about the District of
Columbia's receivership programs and the accountability of the
receivers. This legislation will promote the financial
stability and efficient management of the District government.
II. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION
The District of Columbia has had four agencies placed in
court-appointed receivership. Only one agency, the D.C. Housing
Authority, has successfully emerged from receivership in stable
financial and managerial condition. The remaining agencies,
Child and Family Services, the Commission on Mental Health
Services, and the Corrections Medical Services in the D.C.
Jail, continue to languish in receivership since their are no
mechanisms in place to ensure financial and management
accountability.
H.R. 3995 requires court-appointed District of Columbia
receivers to ensure that the costs incurred in administering
the agency under receivership are consistent with regional and
national standards. Under this legislation, the receiver must
use the best means available to promote financial stability and
sound management practices within the agency. The receiver must
consult with the Mayor and the Chief Financial Officer of D.C.
when preparing the annual budget. Estimates of expenditures and
appropriations for the operations of the agency must be
submitted to the Mayor for inclusion in the city's annual
budget. The legislation also requires an independent auditor to
conduct annual fiscal and management audits of the agency.
Nothing in this bill is intended to impede a D.C. receiver's
mandate to remedy constitutional violations.
III. LEGISLATIVE HEARINGS AND COMMITTEE ACTIONS
Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton introduced the legislation
on March 15, 2000, and it was referred to the House Committee
on Government Reform. On March 28, 2000, it was referred to the
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia. The Subcommittee
marked up the bill at the Child and Family Services
Receivership hearing on May 5, 2000. The Subcommittee approved
an amendment offered by Mrs. Norton which requires the use of
generally accepted accounting principles, fiscal management
practices, and an annual fiscal and management review conducted
by an independent auditor. In addition the amendment requires
that the procurement process is competitive unless one of the
newly added exceptions is met. The amendment also clarifies the
applicability of the Anti-deficiency Act. The Subcommittee
approved the bill as amended by voice vote on May 5, 2000, and
forwarded it to the Committee on Government Reform.
IV. COMMITTEE HEARINGS AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY
The District of Columbia Subcommittee is in the process of
holding hearings regarding the status of the three remaining
agencies in receivership, Child and Family Services, the
Commission on Mental Health Services, and Corrections Medical
Services in the D.C. Jail, in an effort to assess the successes
and failures of their respective receivers. On May 5, 2000, the
Subcommittee held a hearing about the Child and Family Services
receivership. Hearings concerning the other receiverships will
be held before the August 2000 recess.
V. EXPLANATION OF THE BILL
Section 1
Section 1 provides the bill's short title, ``District of
Columbia Receivership Accountability Act of 2000.''
Section 2
Section 2 provides a definition of a ``District of Columbia
Receiver.'' It indicates that all D.C. receivers are subject to
the requirements of Section 3.
Section 3
Section 3 requires that D.C. receivers use administration
practices which promote financial stability and management
efficiency, while ensuring that the costs incurred by the
agency, department, or office under receivership are consistent
with applicable regional and national standards. The receivers
are also required to use generally accepted accounting
principles and fiscal management practices to promote
efficiency and cost-effectiveness.
Effective in fiscal year 2001, D.C. receivers are required
to consult with the Mayor and the Chief Financial Officer when
preparing a budget for the agency, department, or office under
receivership. The receiver then submits a budget to the Mayor
who forwards it to the City Council pursuant to sections 446
and 603(c) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act. The Mayor
and Council are permitted to make recommendations, but not
revisions. This budgetary requirement is effective unless the
terms of the D.C. receiver's appointment permit revisions by
the Mayor and the Council.
This section also requires that the D.C. receiver and the
Mayor jointly choose an independent auditor to conduct an
annual fiscal and management audit, unless the terms of the
receiver's appointment permit the parties to the court action
to select the auditor.
Section 3 requires the use of competitive procedures
considered the best suited to the circumstances in order to
attain a full and open competitive procurement process.
Alternative methods would need to be used if the amount of
money involved in the procurement is nominal, the public need
is urgent, the receiver certifies that only one supplier is
available, or the required services are technical and
professional and are performed by the contractor in person, or,
the services are performed under the D.C. receiver's
supervision and are compensated based on the period of time
worked.
Section 4
Section 4 clarifies that the provisions of subchapter III
of chapter 13 of title 31, United States Code apply to District
of Columbia receivers.
VI. COMPLIANCE WITH RULE XI
Pursuant to rule XI, clause 2(1)(3)(A) of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, under the authority of rule X, clause
2(b)(1) and clause 3(f), the results and findings from
Committee oversight activities are incorporated in the bill and
this report.
VII. BUDGET ANALYSIS AND PROJECTIONS
The budget analysis and projections required by section
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are contained in
the estimate of the Congressional Budget Office.
VIII. COST ESTIMATE OF THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
H.R. 3995 would require agencies of the District of
Columbia that are in receivership to follow certain budgeting,
management, and procurement practices. Currently, four District
agencies--Child and Family Services, the Commission on Mental
Health Services, the Corrections Medical Receiver for the
District of Columbia Jail, and the District of Columbia Housing
Authority--are administered by court-appointed receivers.
Because the bill would apply only to agencies of the District
of Columbia, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3995 would have
no impact on the federal budget. The bill would not affect
direct spending or receipts, so pay-as-you-go procedures would
not apply.
H.R. 3995 contains an intergovernmental mandate because it
effectively would require the departments within the District
of Columbia that are currently administered by a court-
appointed receiver to adopt certain management practices to
improve their financial stability. CBO estimates that the cost
of complying with this mandate would be minimal, and thus would
not exceed the threshold established in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act ($55 million in 2000, adjusted annually for
inflation). The bill contains no private-sector mandates as
defined in that act.
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, May 31, 2000.
Hon. Dan Burton,
Chairman, Committee on Government Reform,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3995, the District
of Columbia Receivership Accountability Act of 2000.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are John R.
Righter (for federal costs), and Susan Sieg Tompkins (for the
state and local impact).
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
H.R. 3995--District of Columbia Receivership Accountability Act of 2000
H.R. 3995 would require agencies of the District of
Columbia that are in receivership to follow certain budgeting,
management, and procurement practices. Currently, four District
agencies--Child and Family Services, the Commission on Mental
Health Services, the Corrections Medical Receiver for the
District of Columbia Jail, and the District of Columbia Housing
Authority--are administered by court-appointed receivers.
Because the bill would apply only to agencies of the District
of Columbia, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3995 would have
no impact on the federal budget. The bill would not affect
direct spending or receipts, so pay-as-you-go procedures would
not apply.
H.R. 3995 contains an intergovernmental mandate because it
effectively would require the departments within the District
of Columbia that are currently administered by a court-
appointed receiver to adopt certain management practices to
improve their minimal, and thus would not exceed the threshold
established in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act ($55 million in
2000, adjusted annually for inflation). The bill contains no
private-sector mandates as defined in that act.
The CBO staff contacts are John R. Righter (for federal
costs), and Susan Sieg Tompkins (for the state and local
impact). This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine,
Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
IX. SPECIFIC CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY FOR THIS LEGISLATION
Clauses 1 and 18 of Article I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution
grant Congress the power to enact this law.
X. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
On May 18, 2000, a quorum being present, the Committee
ordered the bill, as amended, favorably reported.
Committee on Government Reform--106th Congress--Rollcall
Date: May 18, 2000.
Final Passage of H.R. 3995, as amended.
Offered by: Hon. Dan Burton offered an amendment in the
nature of a substitute.
Adopted by voice vote.
XI. UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM ACT; PUBLIC LAW 104-4, SECT. 423
H.R. 3995 contains an intergovernmental mandate but would
not exceed the threshold established in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act ($55 million in 2000, adjusted annually for
inflation).
XII. FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT (5 U.S.C. App.) Section 5(b)
The Committee finds that H.R. 3995 does not establish or
authorize establishment of an advisory committee within the
definition of 5 U.S.C. App., Section 5(b).
XIII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
H.R. 3995 does not change existing law.