[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 3]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 4095]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    INTRODUCTION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON

                      of the district of columbia

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 9, 2017

  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 the District of Columbia Council and 
to align longtime congressional practice and the law. The congressional 
review process for D.C. bills is almost entirely ignored by Congress, 
providing it no benefit, but imposes substantial costs, in time and 
money, on the District. Congress has almost always used the 
appropriations process rather than the disapproval process to block or 
nullify D.C.'s legislation, and entirely abandoned the congressional 
review process as its mechanism for nullifying D.C. legislation 24 
years ago, having only used it three times before then. Yet Congress 
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.
  Our bill would eliminate the congressional review process for 
legislation passed by the D.C. Council. However, Congress would lose no 
authority it currently exercises because, even upon enactment of this 
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 those days when either house of Congress 
is 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, avoiding a lapse of the bill before it becomes final. 
The congressional calendar means that a 30-day period usually lasts a 
couple of 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 to 65 percent of the bills it passes could be eliminated if the 
review period did not exist. To ensure that a bill becomes law, 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 the 
House and Senate are in session for each D.C. bill 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 two-year Council period if the review period were eliminated. 
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy addressed the issue of saving such 
resources by eliminating the amount of paperwork sent to Congress when 
he proposed a cut in the number of reports that federal agencies are 
required to submit to Congress. Our bill is a perfect candidate because 
it eliminates a paperwork process that repeats itself without 
interruption.
  My bill would do no more than align the Home Rule Act with 
congressional practice over the last 24 years. Of the more than 5,000 
legislative acts transmitted to Congress since the Home Rule Act, only 
three resolutions disapproving D.C. legislation have been enacted (in 
1979, 1981, and 1991) and two of those mistakenly involved federal 
interests, one in the Height Act and the other in the location of 
chanceries. Placing a congressional hold on 5,000 D.C. bills has not 
only proven unnecessary, but has imposed costs on the D.C. government, 
residents and businesses. District residents and businesses are also 
placed on hold because they have no certainty when D.C. bills, from 
taxes to regulations, will take effect, making it difficult to plan. 
Instead of using the congressional review process to nullify D.C. 
legislation, Congress has preferred to use riders to appropriations 
bills. Therefore, it is particularly unfair to require the D.C. Council 
to engage in this labor-intensive and costly process. My bill would 
only eliminate the automatic hold placed on D.C. legislation and the 
need for the D.C. Council to comply with a process initially created 
for the convenience of Congress, but that is now rarely used. This bill 
would promote efficiency and cost savings for Congress, the District, 
its residents, and businesses without reducing congressional oversight, 
and would 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.

                          ____________________