[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 72 (Monday, June 12, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H4191-H4192]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page H4191]]
      DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA RECEIVERSHIP ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2000

  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass 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, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3995

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     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.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Davis) and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia 
(Ms. Norton) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis).


                             General Leave

  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks on H.R. 3995, the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3995, the District of 
Columbia Receivership Accountability Act of 2000. The Subcommittee on 
the District of Columbia, which I chair, of the Committee on Government 
Reform, is currently examining the status of the City's agencies that 
are overseen by court-appointed receivers. Presently, there are three 
outstanding agency receiverships: the Child and Family Services; the 
Commission on Mental Health Services; and the Corrections Medical 
Receiver for the District of Columbia Jail.
  Each of these agencies has languished in receivership for a 
substantial period of time and has continued to be plagued by 
systematic problems in the delivery of expected services. Since these 
agencies are under the authority of the court system and not the 
District Government, expedient congressional action is necessary to 
induce comprehensive reforms within the receivership to return them to 
the jurisdiction of the District Government.
  The Child and Family Services agency was brought under the glare of 
the public spotlight with the tragic death of young Brianna Blackmond. 
While Brianna was under the care of the Child and Family Services 
agency, her life was tragically cut short, at 23 months, by a blunt 
force trauma injury to the head. As the proud father of three children 
myself, I can say that stories such as Brianna's stab us in the heart 
and leave us wondering in amazement at how this could have happened.
  Unfortunately, Brianna's death is not a story of a one-time case 
slipping through the cracks of an otherwise well-functioning child 
welfare system. Brianna is just one example of many heart-wrenching 
stories of children adversely affected by the systemic problems of the 
District of Columbia's child welfare system.
  The two other district agencies in receivership have also 
demonstrated extreme deficiencies in their operations. The Commission 
on Mental Health Services agency has actually become worse since 
becoming a receivership. There are currently more mentally ill homeless 
people on the streets than ever before. Group homes for the mentally 
ill are poorly run and neglected,

[[Page H4192]]

and treatment is difficult to come by. The lack of improvement in their 
services has recently led the receiver to resign.
  The D.C. Jail Medical Services receivership's financial management is 
in dire straits as well. For example, the receiver recently issued a 
contract to a private entity which had the D.C. contract as its only 
contract and had never been in the business, at a cost of three times 
the national average.
  This year alone, these three agencies combined will cost the District 
of Columbia taxpayers $352 million in court-controlled spending. In 
answer to these deafening receivership problems, the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and I have joined together to 
introduce H.R. 3995, the District of Columbia Receivership 
Accountability Act of 2000 to provide management guidance to these 
receiverships and make them more accountable to the District of 
Columbia Government and the City's taxpayers. I would like to commend 
the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia for her leadership and 
compassionate interest in repairing these ailing District agencies.
  Specifically, the bill places affirmative duties on all the receivers 
in the areas of best practices. Each receiver should conduct all 
operations consistent with the best financial and management practices 
by regional and national standards.
  Annual audit by independent auditor. Each receiver must submit to an 
annual financial and program audit conducted by an independent auditor 
selected jointly by the receiver involved with the mayor.
  Controlling costs. Each receiver must ensure that costs are 
consistent with applicable regional and national standards. This 
requirement may be waived in a few exceptional circumstances.
  Consultation with City officials on the budget. In preparing the 
annual budget for the entity in receivership, the receiver must consult 
with the mayor and the chief financial officer of the District of 
Columbia. After this consultation, the receivers must prepare and 
submit their budget to the mayor for inclusion in the City's annual 
budget. The council may comment and may make recommendations on the 
receivers' budget estimates.
  Procurement practices. When entering into contracts, each receiver 
must fully comply with generally accepted procurement practices.
  Mr. Speaker, the District of Columbia Receivership Accountability Act 
of 2000 is a significant step towards inducing progressive reforms 
within the receiverships in order to return them in proper working 
order to the District of Columbia. I urge all my colleagues to join me 
in voting to support this vitally needed piece of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Ms. NORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Burton) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) for their 
support of H.R. 3995 the District of Columbia Receivership 
Accountability Act of 2000 and for the attention they have consistently 
shown to moving bills that affect the Nation's capital. With so much of 
the District's vital affairs dependent upon actions by the Congress, I 
particularly appreciate the attention that the chairman and ranking 
member have given to the City's bills and concerns.
  I particularly want to thank the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Davis), for his consistently strong leadership on 
District of Columbia matters and for his support in moving this bill, 
in particular, forward. H.R. 3995 was passed unanimously by the 
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia on May 5, 2000 and the full 
Committee on Government Reform on May 18, 2000.
  I appreciate the quick action and serious attention the subcommittee 
chairman has afforded problems in receiverships that control three D.C. 
functions. When the chair learned of these problems, he asked me to 
join him in initiating a GAO study of the District's receiverships, 
beginning with the receivership for the Child and Family Services 
agency. We began there because of the tragic and clearly preventable 
death of the infant Brianna Blackmond; the confusion and uncertainty in 
assessing responsibility for the child's death; and evidence of 
disarray the tragedy brought to public view that could mean other 
children under the care of the receivership may not be safe.
  I appreciate as well the concern of the majority whip, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. DeLay), who came personally to testify before the 
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia in the first of our three 
public hearings on the outstanding D.C. receivership, the foster care 
receivership.
  In addition, the D.C. jail receivership appears to have excessive 
costs and irregular procurement practices. And the mental health 
receivership had problems that were so severe that the receiver had to 
be replaced. The public housing receivership will end this year and the 
agency will be returned to District of Columbia control. That receiver, 
David Gilmore, stands out for the success of his tenure, which took a 
very complicated agency with the longest history of failure and 
dysfunction and reformed all of its functions; operations, social 
services, physical infrastructure, and public safety.
  Action by the Congress on the receiverships is necessary because the 
courts and not the District of Columbia Government have control over 
the functions. H.R. 3995 responds to the early evidence we have 
received regarding basic deficiencies in D.C. receiverships by placing 
best practice requirements on agencies in receivership in the District 
of Columbia in seven areas:
  One. Financial stability and management efficiency. Receivers must 
carry out the administration of the agency under receivership through 
practices which promote the financial stability and management 
efficiency of the District of Columbia.
  Two. Cost controls. Receivers must ensure that costs incurred in the 
administration of the agency are consistent with applicable regional 
and national standards.
  Three. Best practices. Receivers must carry out the administration of 
the agency through the application of generally-accepted accounting 
principles and generally-accepted fiscal and management practices.
  Four. Budget preparation. Receivers must consult with the District of 
Columbia mayor, chief financial officer, and city council prior to 
submitting the agency budget.
  Five. Annual audit. Receivers must submit to an annual fiscal and 
management audit by an independent auditor selected jointly by the 
receiver and the city.
  Six. Procurement. Receivers must use best procurement practices that 
foster full and open competition.
  Seven. Anti-Deficiency Act. This provision clarifies that the Anti-
Deficiency Act applies to District agencies in receivership.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is noncontroversial and strongly 
supported by the mayor and the city council of the District of 
Columbia. I urge passage.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I also want to thank the majority whip, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay), for his interest and his understanding and his leadership on 
the bill. He was a very active participant in helping to move this 
legislation forward and craft it so it would achieve the goals that we 
all had in mind, and that is to prevent problems like we had with 
Brianna Blackmond in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 3995, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.




                          ____________________