[House Report 112-259]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
112th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 112-259
======================================================================
TO GRANT THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS TO AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPACT BETWEEN
THE STATES OF MISSOURI AND ILLINOIS PROVIDING THAT BONDS ISSUED BY THE
BI-STATE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY MAY MATURE IN NOT TO EXCEED 40 YEARS
_______
October 25, 2011.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be
printed
_______
Mr. Smith, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.J. Res. 70]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the
joint resolution (H.J. Res. 70) to grant the consent of
Congress to an amendment to the compact between the States of
Missouri and Illinois providing that bonds issued by the Bi-
State Development Agency may mature in not to exceed 40 years,
having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an
amendment and recommends that the joint resolution do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
The Amendment.................................................... 2
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 2
Background and Need for the Legislation.......................... 2
Hearings......................................................... 4
Committee Consideration.......................................... 4
Committee Votes.................................................. 4
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 4
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 4
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................ 5
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 6
Advisory on Earmarks............................................. 6
Section-by-Section Analysis...................................... 6
The Amendment
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. CONSENT.
(a) In General.--The consent of Congress is given to the amendment of
the powers conferred on the Bi-State Development Agency by Senate Bill
758, Laws of Missouri 2010 and Public Act 96-1520 (Senate Bill 3342),
Laws of Illinois 2010.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment to the powers conferred by the
Acts consented to in subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 2. RIGHT TO ALTER, AMEND, OR REPEAL.
The right to alter, amend, or repeal this joint resolution is
expressly reserved.
SEC. 3. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS.
The right is reserved to Congress to require the disclosure and
furnishings of such information or data by the Bi-State Development
Agency as is deemed appropriate by Congress.
Purpose and Summary
Pursuant to Article I, Section 10, clause 3 of the
Constitution, House Joint Resolution 70 gives Congressional
approval to an amendment to the compact between the States of
Missouri and Illinois, originally ratified on September 20,
1949, and subsequently approved by Congress. The amendment
allows the Bi-State Development Agency to issue up to 40-year
notes, bonds or other instruments in writing (``bonds''); the
compact previously allowed the Agency to issue up to 30-year
bonds.
Background and Need for the Legislation
The Constitution recognizes that states may make
``agreements'' or ``compacts'' with one another.\1\ An
interstate compact is essentially a contract between two or
more states, which usually is made by the states enacting
identical legislation setting forth the terms of the compact.
Congressional consent is required when the compact encroaches
on powers reserved to the Federal Government.\2\ Once it is in
force, a compact functions as a legally binding contract on the
member states.\3\ A congressionally approved interstate compact
trumps conflicting laws of the signatory states and has the
force of Federal law.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\See U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 10, cl. 3 (``No State shall,
without the Consent of Congress . . . enter into any Agreement or
Compact with another State. . . .'').
\2\See, e.g., Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503, 519 (1893)
(``[I]t is evident that the prohibition is directed to the formation of
any combination tending to the increase of political power in the
States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of
the United States.''), quoted in U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax
Comm'n, 434 U.S. 452, 471 (1978) (``This rule states the proper balance
between Federal and state power with respect to compacts and agreements
among States.'').
\3\See, e.g., Green v. Biddle, 21 U.S. 1, 92-93 (1823) (``Kentucky,
therefore, being a party to the compact which guarantied [sic] to
claimants of land lying in that State, under titles derived from
Virginia, their rights, as they existed under the laws of Virginia, was
incompetent to violate that contract, by passing any law which rendered
those rights less valid and secure.''); West Virginia ex rel. Dyer v.
Sims, 341 U.S. 22, 28 (1951) (``But a compact is after all a legal
document. . . . It requires no elaborate argument to reject the
suggestion that an agreement solemnly entered into between States by
those who alone have political authority to speak for a State can be
unilaterally nullified, or given final meaning by an organ of one of
the contracting States. A State cannot be its own ultimate judge in a
controversy with a sister State.'').
\4\See Cuyler v. Adams, 449 U.S. 433, 440 (1981) (``But where
Congress has authorized the States to enter into a cooperative
agreement, and where the subject matter of that agreement is an
appropriate subject for congressional legislation, the consent of
Congress transforms the States' agreement into Federal law under the
Compact Clause.'') (citing, inter alia, Dyer, 341 U.S. at 26).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Until the early 20th Century, interstate compacts often
were used to settle boundary disputes between states,\5\ but in
recent years they also have addressed regional problems
requiring intergovernmental cooperation. Today, there are
approximately 200 active interstate compacts ``cover[ing] a
broad range of issues, from environmental and energy policy (39
compacts) to water allocation (38), traffic and transportation
(28), crime control (16), and education (12), among other
matters.''\6\ For example, the Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority, which runs the Metro system in the greater
Washington, D.C. area, is the product of an interstate
compact.\7\ In short, ``[c]ompacts fit comfortably into the
Federal scheme because they enable the states--in their
sovereign capacity--to act jointly and generally outside the
confines of the Federal legislative or regulatory process while
concomitantly respecting the view of Congress on the
appropriateness of joint action. Equally important, compacts
effectively preempt Federal interference into matters that are
traditionally within the purview of the states but have
regional or national implications.''\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\See, e.g., Felix Frankfurter & James M. Landis, The Compact
Clause of the Constitution--A Study in Interstate Adjustments, 34 Yale
L.J. 685, 692, 696 (May 1925) (The Compact Clause ``is part and parcel
of the long and familiar story of colonial boundary controversies.
Almost all of the colonial charters, it will be recalled, were
necessarily vague and expansive. They had to be applied to strange and
ill-surveyed territory. We are also familiar with the surrender by the
sea-board colonies of extravagant claims to remote stretches of the
continent. . . . Boundary disputes . . . have been the most continuous
occasions for invoking the Compact Clause.'').
\6\Michael S. Greve, Compacts, Cartels, and Congressional Consent,
68 Mo. L. Rev. 285, 288 (Spring 2003); see also National Center for
Interstate Compacts, http://www.csg.org/NCIC/default.aspx (last
accessed Oct. 17, 2011).
\7\See 89 P.L. 774, 80 Stat. 1324 (Nov. 6, 1966).
\8\Michael L. Buenger & Richard L. Masters, The Interstate Compact
on Adult Offender Supervision: Using Old Tools to Solve New Problems, 9
Roger Williams U. L. Rev. 71, 91 (Fall 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 20, 1949, Missouri and Illinois entered into a
Compact that was approved by Congress on August 21, 1950, and
signed by the President on August 31.\9\ Since then, Congress
has approved amendments to the Compact on three occasions.\10\
The Compact created the Bi-State Metropolitan Development
District in the St. Louis metropolitan area, and the Bi-State
Development Agency to facilitate cooperation between the two
states. For example, the Agency is the primary provider of
public transportation in St. Louis. Among other facilities and
projects, the Agency owns and operates a general aviation
airport and operates (in cooperation with the National Park
Service) the tram to the top of the Gateway Arch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\See 81 P.L. 743, 64 Stat. 568.
\10\See H.R.J. Res. 465, 86th Cong., 73 Stat. 582 (Sept. 21, 1959);
S.J. Res. 127, 99th Cong., 99 Stat. 477 (Sept. 30, 1985); H.R.J. Res.
78, 104th Cong., 110 Stat. 883 (Apr. 1, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency does not have taxing authority, but it may issue
bonds. Construction of the Gateway Arch tram, for example, was
financed by Agency-issued bonds. The Compact previously
restricted the Agency from issuing bonds with a maturity period
of longer than 30 years. Last year, however, Missouri and
Illinois enacted legislation to amend the Compact and allow the
Agency to issue bonds with maturity dates up to 40 years. In
addition to other capital improvements, the Agency could use
revenue from these 40-year bonds to support the ``City-Arch-
River 2015'' initiative, a local development project designed
to better integrate the Gateway Arch and the Jefferson National
Expansion Memorial into the whole St. Louis metropolitan
area.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\See generally http://www.cityarchriver.org/(last accessed Oct.
17, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri and Illinois both have agreed to this amendment.
On May 25, 2010, the Missouri General Assembly adopted Senate
Bill 758, which the Governor signed on July 7. The Illinois
General Assembly adopted Senate Bill 3342 on November 18, 2010,
which the Governor signed February 4, 2011.
Representative Clay (D-MO) introduced House Joint
Resolution 70 on June 24, 2011. All other St. Louis-area
Members are co-sponsors: Representatives Akin (R-MO), Carnahan
(D-MO) and Costello (D-IL) are original co-sponsors, and
Representative Shimkus (R-IL) joined on September 13. Senator
McCaskill (D-MO) introduced companion legislation on June 28,
2011. Senate Joint Resolution 22 is co-sponsored by Senators
Blunt (R-MO), Durbin (D-IL) and Kirk (R-IL). On September 26,
2011, Senate Joint Resolution 22 was discharged from the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary by unanimous consent, and passed the
same day by the Senate without amendment and by unanimous
consent.
Hearings
The Committee on the Judiciary held no hearings on House
Joint Resolution 70.
Committee Consideration
On September 21, 2011, the Committee met in open session
and ordered the resolution House Joint Resolution 70 favorably
reported with amendments, by voice vote, a quorum being
present.
Committee Votes
In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that there
were no recorded votes during the Committee's consideration of
House Joint Resolution 70. The Committee adopted two amendments
by voice vote. Amendment One, offered by Chairman Smith,
changed the effective date in Section 1(b) from ``December 17,
2010'' to ``the date of the enactment of this Act.'' Amendment
Two, offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner, struck the former Section 2
in its entirety.
Committee Oversight Findings
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the
descriptive portions of this report.
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures
Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does
not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax
expenditures.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with
respect to the resolution, House Joint Resolution 70, the
following estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of
the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, September 30, 2011.
Hon. Lamar Smith, Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed
cost estimate for H.J. Res. 70, a joint resolution to grant the
consent of Congress to an amendment to the compact between the
states of Missouri and Illinois providing that bonds issued by
the Bi-State Development Agency may mature in not to exceed 40
years.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Martin von
Gnechten, who can be reached at 226-2860.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Elmendorf,
Director.
Enclosure
cc:
Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Ranking Member
H.J. Res. 70--A joint resolution to grant the consent of Congress to an
amendment to the compact between the states of Missouri and
Illinois providing that bonds issued by the Bi-State
Development Agency may mature in not to exceed 40 years.
H.J. Res. 70 would formally approve an amendment to an
existing interstate compact between Illinois and Missouri.
Currently, Illinois and Missouri cooperate through the Bi-State
Development Agency for certain transportation projects around
the St. Louis metropolitan area. Under current law, the maximum
length of time for bonds issued by the agency to mature is 30
years. H.J. Res. 70 would consent to amending the existing
compact so the agency can issue bonds that mature in 40 years
or less.
CBO estimates that implementing the legislation would have
no significant impact on the Federal budget. Enacting H.J. Res.
70 would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore,
pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.
H.J. Res. 70 contains no intergovernmental or private-
sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
and would impose no costs on State, local, or tribal
governments.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Martin von
Gnechten. The estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine,
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
Performance Goals and Objectives
The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, House
Joint Resolution 70 will give Congressional consent to an
amendment to the compact between the State of Missouri and
Illinois, which both states previously have ratified.
Advisory on Earmarks
In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, House Joint Resolution 70 does not
contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or
limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), or
9(g) of Rule XXI.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1. Subsection (a) gives Congressional consent to an
amendment to the Compact between the States of Missouri and
Illinois. The underlying legislation, enacted by both states,
would allow the Bi-State Development Agency to issue up to 40-
year bonds. The Compact previously allowed the Agency to issue
up to 30-year bonds. Subsection (b) sets the effective date as
the date of enactment.
Section 2. This section expressly reserves to Congress the
right to alter, amend, or repeal its consent to this amendment
to the Compact.
Section 3. This section reserves to Congress oversight
power of the Bi-State Development Agency.