[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 3 (Tuesday, January 7, 2014)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E9-E10]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  THE INTRODUCTION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON

                      of the district of columbia

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, January 7, 2014

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the District of Columbia 
Paperwork Reduction Act, to eliminate the wasteful congressional review 
process for legislation passed by

[[Page E10]]

the District of Columbia Council and to align longtime congressional 
practice and the law. The congressional review process for D.C. bills 
provides no benefit to Congress, but imposes substantial costs (in time 
and money) on the District. Indeed, Congress effectively abandoned the 
congressional review process as a mechanism for overturning D.C. 
legislation twenty-three years ago, yet it still requires the D.C. 
Council to use Kafkaesque make-work procedures to comply with the 
abandoned congressional review process established by the Home Rule Act 
of 1973.
  The bill would eliminate the congressional review process for 
legislation passed by the D.C. Council. Congress would lose no 
authority it currently exercises because, even upon enactment of my 
bill, Congress would retain its authority under clause 17 of section 8 
of article I of the U.S. Constitution to amend or overturn any D.C. 
legislation at any time.
  The congressional review process (30 days for civil bills and 60 days 
for criminal bills) includes only those days when both houses of 
Congress are in session, delaying D.C. bills from becoming law, often 
for many months. The delay forces the D.C. Council to pass most bills 
several times, using a cumbersome and complicated process to ensure 
that the operations of this large and rapidly changing city continue 
uninterrupted, or in the alternative, the lapse of the bill before it 
becomes final. The review period, based on legislative, not calendar, 
days means, for example, that a 30-day period usually lasts three 
calendar months and often much longer because of congressional 
recesses. The congressional review period for a bill that changed the 
word ``handicap'' to ``disability'' lasted nine months. The Council 
estimates that 50-65 percent of the bills the Council passes could be 
eliminated if the review period did not exist. To ensure 
predictability, the Council often must pass the same legislation in 
three forms--emergency (in effect for 90 days), temporary (in effect 
for 225 days) and permanent. Moreover, the Council has to carefully 
track the days Congress is in session for each piece of legislation it 
passes to avoid gaps and to determine when the bills have taken effect. 
The Council estimates that it could save 5,000 employee-hours and 
160,000 sheets of paper per Council period if the review period were 
eliminated.
  My bill would do no more than align the Home Rule Act with 
congressional practice over the last twenty-three years. Since the Home 
Rule Act, of the more than 4,500 legislative acts transmitted to 
Congress, only three resolutions disapproving D.C. legislation have 
been enacted--in 1979, 1981, and 1991--and two of those mistakenly 
involved federal interests in the Height Act and the location of 
chanceries. Placing a congressional hold on 4,500 D.C. bills has not 
only proven unnecessary, but also a waste of money and time for both 
the District and Congress. Instead of using the congressional review 
process to overturn D.C. legislation, Congress has preferred to use 
appropriations riders. It is particularly unfair to require the D.C. 
Council to engage in a labor-intensive and costly process that Congress 
has itself long ago abandoned. My bill would only eliminate the 
automatic hold placed on D.C. legislation and the need for the D.C. 
Council to use a process initially passed for the convenience of 
Congress, but one that Congress has since eliminated in all but law. 
The bill would promote efficiency and cost savings for the District, 
and carry out a policy stressed by Congress of eliminating needless 
paperwork and make-work redundancy.
  I urge my colleagues to support this good-government measure.

                          ____________________