Order Code RS22450
Updated March 12, 2008
Procedural Analysis of Private Laws Enacted:
1986-2007
Christopher M. Davis
Analyst on the Congress and Legislative Process
Government and Finance Division
Summary
Between 1986 and 2007 (99th-109th Congresses), 167 private laws were enacted.
As of this writing, no private laws have been enacted in the 110th Congress. Most
private laws during this period dealt with immigration issues or claims against the
government. Of these measures, 66% originated in the House, 9% had cosponsors, and
23% had companion bills. Most were enacted without amendment or need to resolve
differences with the other house. This report examines the broad distinctions among
these measures in terms of their subject matter, introduction, sponsorship and
cosponsorship, referral, method of consideration, amendment, and reconciling of
differences between the chambers’ versions of the bill. It will be updated as necessary.
Unlike public law, which applies to public matters and deals with individuals only
by classes, the provisions of private law apply to “one or several specified persons,
corporations, [or] institutions.”1 Private legislation is premised on the idea that general
law cannot cover all situations equitably, and sometimes Congress must approve
legislation to address unique problems that public law either created or overlooked.
Private legislation has its foundation in the right to “petition the government for a redress
of grievances”2 guaranteed to all citizens by the First Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution. While once much more common, in modern practice private laws are rare
and designed to grant relief in those few situations where no other legal or administrative
remedies are available to a petitioner.
Between 1986 and 2007 (99th-109th Congresses), 167 private laws were enacted.
This report examines the broad distinctions that appear among these 167 measures in
terms of their subject matter, introduction, sponsorship and cosponsorship, referral,
1 Asher C. Hinds, Hinds’ Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States
(Washington: GPO, 1917), vol. 4, §3285.
2 U.S. Congress, Constitution, Jefferson’s Manual, and Rules of the House of Representatives,
H.Doc. 108-241, 108th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 2005), §208, p. 90.

---

CRS-2
method of consideration in each chamber, amendment, and ways in which any differences
between the chambers’ versions of the bill were reconciled. As of this writing, no private
laws have been enacted in the 110th Congress (2007-2008).
Subject Matter of Private Laws
As the chart below demonstrates, from 1986 to 2007, the subject matter of private
laws enacted fell into five broad categories. The largest subject category, immigration,
is composed primarily of measures that confer lawful permanent resident (LPR) status on
a petitioner “by waiving a general law provision which prevents the granting or
maintenance” of such status.3 The second category includes a broad variety of claims
against the government. The remaining private laws during the period studied are divided
among three smaller categories: the conveyance of public lands, civil service issues, and
vessel documentation.
Figure 1. Subject of Private Laws: 1986-2007
100
91
80
56
60
40
20
11
6
3
0
Immigation Claims
Land
Civil Service
Vessel
Conveyance
Documentation
Source: Legislation Information System (LIS) of the U.S. Congress.
3 CRS Report, CRS Report RL33024, Private Immigration Legislation, by Margaret Mikyung
Lee.

---

CRS-3
Introduction Stage
Chamber of Origin. Of the 167 private laws enacted between 1986 and 2007, 56
(34%) originated in the Senate, and 111 (66%) originated in the House of Representatives.
Figure 2. Committee Referrals for Private Bills
Enacted, 1986-2007
Source: Legislation Information System (LIS) of the U.S. Congress.
Party Sponsorship. It is generally accepted that Congress acts on significantly
more measures sponsored by majority party members than by minority party members.
For example, over the past nine Congresses, between 71% and 88% of the measures
passing the House under the Suspension of the Rules procedure were authored by majority
party members.4
An examination of the 167 private laws enacted since the 99th Congress, however,
reveals a more balanced breakdown by party affiliation. Over the 20-year period, 73
private laws were sponsored by Republican Members of Congress and 94 by Democratic
Members. As Table 1 shows, both parties sponsored substantial percentages of private
bills that became law. This is true not only during periods of split party control of
Congress, but also during times when one party held the majority in both chambers.
Table 1. Party Sponsorship of Private Laws: 1986-2007
Republican Sponsored
Democratic Sponsored
Congressional Majority
Private Laws
Private Laws
Democratic
38%
62%
Republican
56%
44%
Chambers Split
43%
57%
Source: Legislation Information System (LIS) of the U.S. Congress.
4 CRS Report 97-901, Suspension of Rules in the House, Measure Sponsorship By Party, by
Thomas P. Carr.

---

CRS-4
The data suggest that party membership is not the exclusive factor in determining
whether a private measure is successful or not. Table 1 tends to show higher proportions
of measures both for Democratic in comparison with Republican majorities and for
Democratic in comparison with Republican minorities. This effect, however, may arise
simply because, during the period studied, both the Democratic majorities and minorities
that occurred tended to be larger than the corresponding Republican ones.
Geographic Sponsorship. The geographic distribution of the sponsorship of
private laws from the 99th to the 109th Congress reveals, not surprisingly, that Members
from the most populous states collectively authored the most private laws. The nation’s
four most populous states — California, Texas, New York, and Florida5 — were also the
top four states in which Members sponsored private laws during this period. Members
from Alaska and Wyoming — the 47th and 50st ranked states in population — each
sponsored four private laws, however, more than Members from significantly larger
states, such as Ohio, Illinois, and New Jersey. These data suggest that the state or region
of a sponsor is not a major factor in whether a private measure is enacted.
Cosponsors. Under House Rule XIII, private bills may not be cosponsored.6
Notwithstanding this prohibition, one House measure that subsequently became law in
the period examined did have cosponsors.7 The Senate places no limits on the
cosponsorship of private measures. Of the 167 private laws examined, 14 Senate bills had
cosponsors.
Companion Bills. Just 23% of the 167 bills that became private laws enacted
between 1986 and 2007 had companion measures introduced in the other chamber during
the Congress they were enacted. This, along with the cosponsorship statistics noted
above, suggests that, in contrast with public policy measures, private bills sponsors view
it as less necessary to build formal coalitions in advance in support of passage of a private
measure, perhaps because the measure will be judged on the merit of the case and the
relatively narrow precedents for the consideration of such requests for relief.
Committee Referral
Historically, most private legislation introduced in Congress was either considered
by various claims committees established in each chamber8 or by committees overseeing
5 U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 Population Estimates, available at [http://www.census.gov/popest/
estimates.php].
6 William Holmes Brown and Charles W. Johnson, House Practice, A Guide to the Rules,
Precedents and Procedures of the House (Washington: GPO, 2003), ch. 6, §15, p. 179.
7 H.R. 2032, 100th Congress. Legislative Information System (LIS) U.S. Library of Congress.
8 David T. Canon, Garrison Nelson, Charles Stewart III, Committees in the U.S. Congress, 1789-
1946, vol. 1 (Washington: CQ Press, 2002), pp. VI-XXXV.

---

CRS-5
immigration.9 The 1946 Legislative Reorganization Act,10 however, transferred
jurisdiction over both immigration and claims bills to the Committees on the Judiciary.
Since 1947, only a small fraction of private measures dealing with matters such as public
lands, vessel documentation, military awards, veterans’ benefits, and tax and tariffs, have
been referred to committees other than the Committees on the Judiciary.
As Figure 2 demonstrates, while other committees have been referred a small
percentage of private measures subsequently enacted, the House and Senate Judiciary
Committees have processed the largest percentage of private laws over the past 20 years.
Five bills were referred to more than one Senate committee and were counted multiple
times in the corresponding table. (For purposes of clarity, the table identifies the relevant
House and Senate committees by their current name and jurisdiction, even if some might
have had a different name or jurisdiction at various points over the period studied.)
Method of Consideration
House. The House has special procedures for considering private measures through
a call of its Private Calendar.11 Of the 167 private laws enacted between the 99th and 109th
Congress, 150 were considered under these procedures. Eleven bills were considered by
unanimous consent. Five were considered under the Suspension of the Rules procedure,
and one passed under the call of the Consent Calendar (which has since been abolished.)
Senate. Unlike the House, the Senate does not have special procedures for the
consideration of private measures; they are dealt with in the same way as public bills. All
167 private measures enacted between the 99th and 109th Congress were considered in the
Senate by unanimous consent.
Bills Passed Over in the House
In the House, on the special days set aside for the call of the Private Calendar, bills
are acted upon in the order listed on the calendar. A bill may be, by unanimous consent,
passed over “without prejudice,” however, meaning that it does not lose its place on the
calendar even though it is not being acted upon.12 Of the private laws examined, seven
were passed over at least once before finally gaining House passage. One private claims
bill, H.R. 1598 from the 99th Congress, was passed over without prejudice 16 times before
being approved by the House.13
9 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, History of the Committee on the Judiciary
of the House of Representatives, committee print, 92nd Cong. 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 1972),
p. 5.
10 P.L. 79-601, 60 Stat. 812.
11 See CRS Report 98-628, Private Bills: Procedure in the House, by Richard S. Beth.
12 Deschler’s Precedents of the U.S. House of Representatives (Washington: GPO, 1977), ch. 22
§12.4-12.6.
13 News reports suggest that House consideration was likely delayed while bill supporters worked
to convince the President to withdraw a veto threat of the measure. See James Hannah, “Law
Helps Ohio Man, Deformed at Birth, Seek Damages,” The Associated Press, October 22, 1986.

---

CRS-6
Amendments to Private Bills
As with public legislation, committees of jurisdiction exercise judgment not only
over whether a private bill merits consideration by their chamber, but also over the
content of the bill; simply put, committees don’t always accept the remedy suggested by
the author of an introduced private measure. As such, private bills are sometimes
amended either in committee or on the floor.
House. Of the 167 private laws enacted between 1986 and 2007:
! 11 were reported from House committee with an amendment in the
nature of a substitute;
! 25 were reported from committee with perfecting amendments; and
! 12 were amended on the House floor.
Senate. Of the 167 private laws enacted between 1986 and 2007:
! 9 were reported from Senate committee with an amendment in the nature
of a substitute;
! 2 were reported from Senate committee with perfecting amendments; and
! 14 private bills were amended on the Senate floor.
Resolving Differences
Only 13% of the private laws enacted between 1986 and 2007 were amended by the
second chamber, thus requiring the two chambers resolve differences. Of this 13%, none
were resolved by conference committee. In every instance, an exchange of amendments
between the House and Senate was used to come into agreement.
Time to Enactment
Like public bills, a private bill must be enacted within the Congress in which it was
introduced, and if not adopted by adjournment, it dies and must be reintroduced in the
next Congress. This often happens in private bill cases, where the time for Congress to
deal with a particular case may be longer than a single Congress. Between 1986 and
2007, the average time from the first introduction of private legislation in Congress
requesting relief to resolution of the case by enactment of a private law was two years,
nine months, a period roughly equal to one and a half Congresses.
During the same period, the longest case took over 8,934 days — over 24 years —
from the first introduction of a private bill to enactment of a private law resolving the
claim.14 The shortest time from first introduction of a private bill to enactment of a law
resolving the case was 29 days.15
14 See S. 2042, 108th Congress.
15 See H.R. 2731 and H.R. 2732, 105th Congress.

---