30-day review period was accepted by supporters of the act just prior to the floor debate and was subsequently agreed to in confer ence. Mr. Chairman, I should note at this point that pursuant to the Home Rule Act, the D.C. Council adopted certain rules and regulations governing its legislative process. I have provided the committee with a chart entitled "District of Columbia Government-Flow of Legislation." It is clear from the chart that the Council and * * * mayor follow a deliberate path in enacting laws a path which allows for thorough analysis and consideration of proposals, and— most importantly-a path which allows ample time for the public and indeed the Congress to be aware of what the local government is planning in the way of new or modified laws. I believe when you add this deliberative process to the broad media attention the council and mayor receive, no citizen nor any Member of Congress can sincerely claim surprise. On the other hand, the current system is confusing, causes uncertainty and is terribly unpredictable. Once the local government has done all that it must or can, no one knows when one of its acts will finally become law. It is not unusual for the 30-legislative-day review period to actually stretch to 90 calendar days. On occasion, it has stretched to as many as 120 calendar days. And when the Congress adjourns sine die, even if the D.C. Government Act has been up here for as many as 29 legislative days, it has to be resubmitted during the next Congress, and the count starts all over again. That has happened before and it has taken as much as 9 months before the District knew that one of its acts was law. Mr. Chairman, that is simply no way to run a government. I would propose that the congressional review period be eliminated altogether, and that acts of the District become law immediately upon transmittal to the Congress. Short of that, I would propose that there be a straight 30-calendar-day delay between submission to the Congress and the D.C. Act becoming law. It should be noted that after nearly a decade of experience under home rule, the Congress has reejected only 2 of the more than 800 District acts. I would further propose, if H.R. 3932 for some reason does not become law, that the one-house veto for criminal laws passed by the District be eliminated and that we standardize the discharge process for the Committee on the District of Columbia by eliminating the expedited discharge provisions in the Home Rule Act. Under these proposals, the article 1, section 8, clause 17 mandate in the U.S. Constitution that Congress maintain ultimate legislative authority over the District is met by Congress acting when it deems it necessary to act. The Chadha problem is also solved by these proposals. You will note that I have not proposed that the sections 601, 602, and 603 limitations be removed, nor have I proposed at this time that the process of review of D.C. Budget Acts be changed. These proposals are modest from the point of view of congressional power but will produce major improvements and increased efficiency in the District's legislative process. Chadha has meant many things to many people. Initially, for the District of Columbia it was a breath of fresh air, but it has become a stranglehold, threatening to choke the District's lifeline. Congress can prevent that by acting soon. |