```

[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.

                                  

```