Eleanor Holmes Norton
Representative for District of Columbia · Democratic · United States
“This bill would require the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to provide individuals in BOP prisons from jurisdictions that allow such individuals to vote, like the District of Columbia and Maine, information on how to register to vote and request an absentee ballot.”
“This bill would require the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to provide individuals in BOP prisons from jurisdictions that allow such individuals to vote, like the District of Columbia and Maine, information on how to register to vote and request an absentee ballot.”
“Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 119 (Tuesday, July 21, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 119 (Tuesday, July 21, 2026)] [Extensions of Remarks] [Page E716] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] INTRODUCTION OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS VOTING ASSISTANCE ACT OF…”
“Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 119 (Tuesday, July 21, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 119 (Tuesday, July 21, 2026)] [Extensions of Remarks] [Page E716] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] INTRODUCTION OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS VOTING ASSISTANCE ACT OF…”
“More fencing around this public space would send the wrong message to the Nation and the world by continuing to transform our democracy from one that is accessible and of the people to one that is exclusive and fearful of its own citizens. Fencing is an incredibly imprecise security tool.”
“More fencing around this public space would send the wrong message to the Nation and the world by continuing to transform our democracy from one that is accessible and of the people to one that is exclusive and fearful of its own citizens. Fencing is an incredibly imprecise security tool.”
The complete record
Every one of 44 lines we hold for Eleanor Holmes Norton, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account.
“This bill would require the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to provide individuals in BOP prisons from jurisdictions that allow such individuals to vote, like the District of Columbia and Maine, information on how to register to vote and request an absentee ballot. BOP would be required to provide each BOP prison information on the criteria for voter registration, instructions on voter registration, voter registration forms and prepaid envelopes for voter registration forms, if provided by the state generally. Each BOP prison would be required to post the information and to give it to each individual eligible to vote. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. ____________________”
“Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 119 (Tuesday, July 21, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 119 (Tuesday, July 21, 2026)] [Extensions of Remarks] [Page E716] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] INTRODUCTION OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS VOTING ASSISTANCE ACT OF 2026 ______ HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON of the district of columbia in the house of representatives Tuesday, July 21, 2026 Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Federal Bureau of Prisons Voting Assistance Act of 2026. Congresswoman Chellie Pingree is the co-lead.”
“This bill would require the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to provide individuals in BOP prisons from jurisdictions that allow such individuals to vote, like the District of Columbia and Maine, information on how to register to vote and request an absentee ballot. BOP would be required to provide each BOP prison information on the criteria for voter registration, instructions on voter registration, voter registration forms and prepaid envelopes for voter registration forms, if provided by the state generally. Each BOP prison would be required to post the information and to give it to each individual eligible to vote. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. ____________________”
“Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 119 (Tuesday, July 21, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 119 (Tuesday, July 21, 2026)] [Extensions of Remarks] [Page E716] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] INTRODUCTION OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS VOTING ASSISTANCE ACT OF 2026 ______ HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON of the district of columbia in the house of representatives Tuesday, July 21, 2026 Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Federal Bureau of Prisons Voting Assistance Act of 2026. Congresswoman Chellie Pingree is the co-lead.”
“Security is not only about reducing risk. It is also about safeguarding the freedoms and values that anchor our country, not only for ourselves but for future generations. Public property should be open to the public. Americans should not be peering at their democracy from behind fences. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. ____________________”
“More fencing around this public space would send the wrong message to the Nation and the world by continuing to transform our democracy from one that is accessible and of the people to one that is exclusive and fearful of its own citizens. Fencing is an incredibly imprecise security tool. It is more likely to keep out District of Columbia residents, tourists, and peaceful demonstrators than those determined to do harm. The areas around the White House complex are used every day by D.C. residents and tourists from across the country and around the world. The distance between government and the people has grown, with trust in government at an all-time low. We should not increase that distance by placing intimidating barriers between public servants and the people they serve, especially when such barriers are unnecessary.”
“The Trump administration has proposed installing permanent fencing at the ends of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House and around Lafayette Square. While I understand the importance of protecting the White House, which is already surrounded by a 13-foot-high fence, we can and must maintain our commitment to security without sacrificing public access by using the least restrictive means necessary to address security. The White House complex has long served as a place where Americans can peacefully assemble. The openness of areas around the White House is a strength of our democracy, not a security weakness that needs to be fenced off.”
“Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 114 (Tuesday, July 14, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 114 (Tuesday, July 14, 2026)] [Extensions of Remarks] [Page E683] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] INTRODUCTION OF THE NO NEW FENCING AT THE WHITE HOUSE ACT ______ HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON of the district of columbia in the house of representatives Tuesday, July 14, 2026 Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the No New Fencing at the White House Act, which would prohibit the installation of new permanent fencing at the White House complex, including Lafayette Square and the Ellipse. This bill would help ensure that one of our Nation's most important public spaces remains open and accessible to the public.”
“Security is not only about reducing risk. It is also about safeguarding the freedoms and values that anchor our country, not only for ourselves but for future generations. Public property should be open to the public. Americans should not be peering at their democracy from behind fences. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. ____________________”
“More fencing around this public space would send the wrong message to the Nation and the world by continuing to transform our democracy from one that is accessible and of the people to one that is exclusive and fearful of its own citizens. Fencing is an incredibly imprecise security tool. It is more likely to keep out District of Columbia residents, tourists, and peaceful demonstrators than those determined to do harm. The areas around the White House complex are used every day by D.C. residents and tourists from across the country and around the world. The distance between government and the people has grown, with trust in government at an all-time low. We should not increase that distance by placing intimidating barriers between public servants and the people they serve, especially when such barriers are unnecessary.”
“The Trump administration has proposed installing permanent fencing at the ends of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House and around Lafayette Square. While I understand the importance of protecting the White House, which is already surrounded by a 13-foot-high fence, we can and must maintain our commitment to security without sacrificing public access by using the least restrictive means necessary to address security. The White House complex has long served as a place where Americans can peacefully assemble. The openness of areas around the White House is a strength of our democracy, not a security weakness that needs to be fenced off.”
“Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 114 (Tuesday, July 14, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 114 (Tuesday, July 14, 2026)] [Extensions of Remarks] [Page E683] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] INTRODUCTION OF THE NO NEW FENCING AT THE WHITE HOUSE ACT ______ HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON of the district of columbia in the house of representatives Tuesday, July 14, 2026 Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the No New Fencing at the White House Act, which would prohibit the installation of new permanent fencing at the White House complex, including Lafayette Square and the Ellipse. This bill would help ensure that one of our Nation's most important public spaces remains open and accessible to the public.”
“This bill would bring those pre-1997 benefits in line with both the post-1997 benefits and the retirement benefits for federal employees in the Civil Service Retirement System and FERS and make an analogous change for D.C. judges, whose retirement benefits are funded by the federal government. In general, for federal retirees, 55 is the age after which a surviving spouse can remarry without losing survivor benefits. This bill would give these workers the retirement benefits they deserve. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. ____________________”
“teachers, police officers and firefighters pension plans, whose pre-1997 benefits are funded by the federal government. In 2018, D.C. enacted a law to provide domestic partner benefits for the police and firefighters pension plan, which mirrored a law already enacted for teachers. However, these domestic partner benefits apply only to service accrued after 1997, since the federal government funds pre-1997 benefits. This bill would make the domestic partner benefits available for pre-1997 benefits, too. Finally, in 2012, D.C. enacted a law that reduced from 60 to 55 the age after which a surviving spouse can remarry without losing survivor benefits in the D.C. teachers, police and firefighters pension plans. However, these benefits apply only to service accrued after 1997, since the federal government funds pre-1997 benefits.”
“First, the Revitalization Act transferred several categories of employees, primarily related to D.C.'s criminal justice system, who participated in D.C.'s defined contribution plan from 1987 to 1997 to the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS). However, these employees' service from 1987 to 1997 was not counted for purposes of creditable service or annuity amount in FERS. In 2009, Congress passed legislation counting this service for creditable service, but not annuity amount. This bill would allow these employees to buy into the FERS annuity amount for 1987 to 1997 by paying 1.3 percent of their base pay plus interest, essentially the employee contribution for this time, which would give them the full retirement benefit to which they should be entitled. Second, this bill would address two benefit issues for employees in the D.C.”
“Speaker, today, I introduce the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 Technical Corrections Act of 2026, which would address several retirement issues for current and former District of Columbia employees that resulted from the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 (Revitalization Act). The Revitalization Act, among other things, transferred several categories of employees who were in the D.C. retirement system to the federal retirement system and transferred responsibility from D.C. to the federal government for funding pension benefits earned by D.C. teachers, police officers, firefighters and judges before 1997.”
“Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 113 (Monday, July 13, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 113 (Monday, July 13, 2026)] [Extensions of Remarks] [Page E671] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] INTRODUCTION OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL REVITALIZATION AND SELF-GOVERNMENT IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1997 TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS ACT OF 2026 ______ HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON of the district of columbia in the house of representatives Monday, July 13, 2026 Ms. NORTON. Mr.”
“We extend our gratitude to community supervision professionals and recognize their many achievements as we proclaim July 19 through July 25, 2026, as Pretrial, Probation and Parole Supervision Week 2026. ____________________”
“They remain mindful of their role in protecting public safety. In honor of Pretrial, Probation and Parole Supervision Week 2026, whose theme is ``Connected for Change: Building Bridges in Supervision,'' we salute all those who have chosen this important career. In the District of Columbia, we especially thank the employees of the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia (CSOSA) and the Pretrial Services Agency for the District of Columbia (PSA) for their service. CSOSA and PSA are models of excellence in community supervision. Community supervision agencies are valuable partners of other government agencies, nonprofits, neighborhood-based groups and all who strive to make our Nation safer and stronger.”
“Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 113 (Monday, July 13, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 113 (Monday, July 13, 2026)] [Extensions of Remarks] [Page E667] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] RECOGNIZING THE NATION'S COMMUNITY SUPERVISION PROFESSIONALS ______ HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON of the district of columbia in the house of representatives Monday, July 13, 2026 Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the Nation's community supervision professionals, who are dedicated public servants and perform many vital roles in their work with justice-involved adults and juveniles. They identify opportunities and services to help justice- involved individuals contribute to society, while holding them accountable for their actions.”
“judges, but it would only have a limited period to do so. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. ____________________”
“judges would be appointed after the expiration of a 30-day congressional review period, unless a resolution disapproving of the appointment was enacted into law during the period. Local D.C. judges are non-Article III judges. The Constitution only requires Senate approval of Article III judges--that is, judges on the federal district courts, the federal appeals courts and the U.S. Supreme Court. Congress has the discretion to decide how non-Article III judges will be appointed, and it has chosen to subject some non- Article III judges to Senate approval, but not others. For example, Congress has not given itself any role in the appointment of bankruptcy or administrative law judges. This bill would strike a middle ground. Congress would retain authority to block the appointment of local D.C.”
“courts, including the nomination and appointment of judges. A seven-member commission, which is comprised of federal, D.C. and private-sector appointees, submits to the president a list of three persons for each vacancy on the local D.C. courts. The president must nominate, and, with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint one person from the list. If the president fails to nominate one of the persons from the list within 60 days, the commission must nominate, and, with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint one of the persons from the list. This bill would not change the role of the president or the commission in the appointment of local D.C. judges. Instead, it would apply the current congressional review process for bills enacted by D.C. to the appointment of local D.C. judges. Upon nomination, local D.C.”
“courts has existed regardless of which party controls the presidency and the Senate because the president and the Senate are, understandably, more focused on nominees to the federal courts and the executive branch than to the local D.C. courts. The sole purpose of this bill is to protect public safety and promote justice by ending the judicial vacancy crisis in the local D.C. courts, which delays the resolution of criminal and civil cases. This bill has nothing to do with D.C. statehood or home rule. Although D.C. will control the local D.C. courts when it becomes a state and Congress can--and should--give D.C. control over the local D.C. courts now, this bill would not give D.C. any new authority over the local D.C. courts. Under the D.C. Home Rule Act, D.C. has no control over the organization or jurisdiction of the local D.C.”
“Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 103 (Thursday, June 18, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 103 (Thursday, June 18, 2026)] [Extensions of Remarks] [Page E589] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] INTRODUCTION THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS JUDICIAL VACANCY REDUCTION ACT ______ HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON of the district of columbia in the house of representatives Thursday, June 18, 2026 Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Courts Judicial Vacancy Reduction Act, which would expedite the appointment of local D.C. judges. Senator Chris Van Hollen is introducing the companion bill. The longstanding judicial vacancy crisis in the local D.C.”
“judges, but it would only have a limited period to do so. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. ____________________”
“judges would be appointed after the expiration of a 30-day congressional review period, unless a resolution disapproving of the appointment was enacted into law during the period. Local D.C. judges are non-Article III judges. The Constitution only requires Senate approval of Article III judges--that is, judges on the federal district courts, the federal appeals courts and the U.S. Supreme Court. Congress has the discretion to decide how non-Article III judges will be appointed, and it has chosen to subject some non- Article III judges to Senate approval, but not others. For example, Congress has not given itself any role in the appointment of bankruptcy or administrative law judges. This bill would strike a middle ground. Congress would retain authority to block the appointment of local D.C.”
“courts, including the nomination and appointment of judges. A seven-member commission, which is comprised of federal, D.C. and private-sector appointees, submits to the president a list of three persons for each vacancy on the local D.C. courts. The president must nominate, and, with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint one person from the list. If the president fails to nominate one of the persons from the list within 60 days, the commission must nominate, and, with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint one of the persons from the list. This bill would not change the role of the president or the commission in the appointment of local D.C. judges. Instead, it would apply the current congressional review process for bills enacted by D.C. to the appointment of local D.C. judges. Upon nomination, local D.C.”
“courts has existed regardless of which party controls the presidency and the Senate because the president and the Senate are, understandably, more focused on nominees to the federal courts and the executive branch than to the local D.C. courts. The sole purpose of this bill is to protect public safety and promote justice by ending the judicial vacancy crisis in the local D.C. courts, which delays the resolution of criminal and civil cases. This bill has nothing to do with D.C. statehood or home rule. Although D.C. will control the local D.C. courts when it becomes a state and Congress can--and should--give D.C. control over the local D.C. courts now, this bill would not give D.C. any new authority over the local D.C. courts. Under the D.C. Home Rule Act, D.C. has no control over the organization or jurisdiction of the local D.C.”
“Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 103 (Thursday, June 18, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 103 (Thursday, June 18, 2026)] [Extensions of Remarks] [Page E589] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] INTRODUCTION THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS JUDICIAL VACANCY REDUCTION ACT ______ HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON of the district of columbia in the house of representatives Thursday, June 18, 2026 Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Courts Judicial Vacancy Reduction Act, which would expedite the appointment of local D.C. judges. Senator Chris Van Hollen is introducing the companion bill. The longstanding judicial vacancy crisis in the local D.C.”
“There is no reason that the Directors of CSOSA and PSA should not be required to live in D.C. These federal officials need to be part of the community they serve. A D.C. residency requirement for these federal officials will lead to better outcomes in the criminal justice system and is a matter of fairness for D.C. residents. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. ____________________”
“CSOSA supervises individuals on probation, parole or supervised release for violations of D.C. law. PSA makes recommendations regarding pretrial release and supervises defendants for the D.C. Superior Court and the U.S. District Court for D.C. The Directors of CSOSA and PSA should be [[Page E342]] required to be D.C. residents since these agencies serve only D.C. Congress has justifiably required that certain federal officials live in the jurisdictions to which they are appointed, including U.S. district court judges, U.S. Marshals and U.S. Attorneys. Similarly, Congress, which controls the local D.C. court system, has justifiably required local D.C. judges and members of the D.C. Judicial Nomination Commission and the D.C. Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure to reside in D.C.”
“Speaker, today, I introduce a bill that would require the Directors of two federal agencies, the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia (CSOSA) and the District of Columbia Pretrial Services Agency (PSA), to reside in the District of Columbia during their terms. There are residency requirements for government positions in federal law, D.C. law and the laws of jurisdictions throughout the United States. The primary reason such laws exist is to ensure that certain government officials have a connection to the residents they serve and in-depth knowledge of the unique issues and challenges these residents face. The House Committee on Oversight and Reform passed this bill in the 117th Congress. CSOSA and PSA are federal agencies that focus exclusively on D.C.”
“Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 70 (Monday, April 28, 2025) [Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 70 (Monday, April 28, 2025)] [Extensions of Remarks] [Pages E341-E342] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] INTRODUCTION OF THE REQUIREMENT OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE COURT SERVICES AND OFFENDER SUPERVISION AGENCY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE DIRECTOR OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PRETRIAL SERVICES AGENCY TO RESIDE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ______ HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON of the district of columbia in the house of representatives Monday, April 28, 2025 Ms. NORTON. Mr.”
“Capitol, Union Station serves as a gateway to the Nation's Capital, as well as the backbone that connects East Coast passenger rail lines to the north and south. People rely on Union Station every day to get to work and to visit the Nation's Capital. Despite the vital role Union Station plays in the Nation's Capital, it has not undergone major renovation since the 1980s. The USEP represents a historic transportation and economic development opportunity for the Nation's Capital and the national capital region, but billions of dollars are needed to carry it out. This bill would give USRC access to critical funding. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. ____________________”
“Union Station is owned by the federal government, and USRC, a nonprofit, manages and operates the station under a lease with the federal government. The members of USRC's board of directors are the Federal Railroad Administration, Amtrak, the Federal City Council, the District of Columbia and the USRC President and CEO. USRC is the only entity exclusively dedicated to the management and operations of Union Station and therefore should be eligible for funding under the FSP Program, the CRISI Program, the BUILD Program and the Mega Program. Union Station is a vital local, regional and national intermodal transportation hub that, pre-pandemic, welcomed more than 100,000 travelers and visitors each day--more than either Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport or Washington Dulles International Airport. Located five blocks from the U.S.”
“Speaker, today, I introduce the Union Station Redevelopment Corporation Funding Eligibility Act, which would make the Union Station Redevelopment Corporation (USRC) eligible for funding under the Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail (FSP) Program, the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) Program, the Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) Program and the National Infrastructure Project Assistance Program, also known as the Mega Program. Funding under these transportation programs is essential to implement the planned expansion and modernization of Union Station in the District of Columbia, known as the Washington Union Station Expansion Project (USEP). Senator Chris Van Hollen has introduced this bill in the Senate.”
“Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 64 (Wednesday, April 9, 2025) [Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 64 (Wednesday, April 9, 2025)] [Extensions of Remarks] [Page E303] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] INTRODUCTION OF THE UNION STATION REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FUNDING ELIGIBILITY ACT ______ HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON of the district of columbia in the house of representatives Wednesday, April 9, 2025 Ms. NORTON. Mr.”
“I recognize that Congress requires all so-called executive communications, including D.C. legislation, to be physically transmitted, but D.C. is the only entity required to transmit legislation to Congress for a review period. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. ____________________”
“The physical transmittal process also imposes costs on Congress. The following congressional offices and committees are involved in the physical transmittal process: the offices of the Speaker and President of the Senate, the House and Senate Parliamentarians, the House Clerk, the Senate Secretary, the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability and the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. The aftermath of the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol highlighted the burdens of physical transmittal. After temporary fencing was installed around the Capitol, D.C. employees could not enter the Capitol. This delayed transmittal of D.C. legislation until Council and congressional staff developed a workaround, which consisted of staff meeting outside the fencing to transmit legislation.”
“Federal agencies transmit regulations and other documents to the Federal Register electronically. Congress is also capable of conducting official business electronically. For example, the House permits Members, including acting through their staff, to introduce legislation and submit statements into the Congressional Record electronically. The requirement that D.C. physically transmit legislation imposes costs on the Council. The Council engages in a 12-step process to physically transmit legislation, including printing two copies of each bill and committee report, arranging a time for delivery of these documents to the offices of the Speaker and President of the Senate and having two staffers drive to the Capitol to deliver the documents--two are necessary because of parking restrictions.”
“The Home Rule Act is silent on the form of transmittal, but Congress has always required the legislation to be physically transmitted. Electronic records are recognized as valid under federal and state law, and federal, state and local governments conduct official business electronically. For example, under the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, which was enacted into law more than 20 years ago, with respect to any interstate transaction in which the parties consent, ``a signature, contract, or other record relating to such transaction may not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form.'' In 2002, the E-Government Act, which facilitated the federal government providing information and services to the public electronically, was enacted into law.”
“into the electronic age. In the 117th Congress, the Committee on Oversight and Reform passed this bill. While I do not believe there should be a congressional review process for D.C. legislation--and I have introduced a bill to eliminate the review process--this bill would not change the review process, except that it would give D.C. flexibility in the form it transmits legislation to Congress. This bill's only purpose is to reduce administrative burdens on D.C. and Congress. The D.C. Home Rule Act requires the Chair of the D.C. Council to transmit legislation to Congress for a review period. The legislation takes effect upon the expiration of the review period, unless a resolution of disapproval is enacted into law during the review period.”
“Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 62 (Monday, April 7, 2025) [Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 62 (Monday, April 7, 2025)] [Extensions of Remarks] [Page E287] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] INTRODUCTION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMITTAL OF LEGISLATION ACT ______ HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON of the district of columbia in the house of representatives Monday, April 7, 2025 Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Electronic Transmittal of Legislation Act, which would permit the Chair of the Council of the District of Columbia to transmit legislation to Congress in the form of the Chair's choosing, including electronic form. This bill would bring the congressional review process for legislation enacted by D.C.”