19–006 

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 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6659
2 

1See U.S. CONST. art. I, § 10, cl. 3 (‘‘No State shall, without the Consent of Congress . . . 

enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State. . . .’’). 2See, 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.’’). 3See, 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.’’). 4See 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). 

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


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6659
3 

5See, 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.’’). 6Michael 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). 7See 89 P.L. 774, 80 Stat. 1324 (Nov. 6, 1966). 8Michael 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). 9See 81 P.L. 743, 64 Stat. 568. 10See 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). 

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

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. 

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 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6659
4 

11See generally http://www.cityarchriver.org/(last accessed Oct. 17, 2011). 

Gateway Arch and the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial into 

the whole St. Louis metropolitan area.11

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. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6659
5 

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-yougo 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. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6659
6 

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. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6659