Procedural Analysis of Private Laws Enacted:
1986-2013
Christopher M. Davis
Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process
April 9, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RS22450
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
Procedural Analysis of Private Laws Enacted: 1986-2013
Summary
Between 1986 and 2013 (99th-113th Congresses), 170 private laws were enacted. As of this
writing, no private laws have been enacted in the 113th Congress (2013-2014). Most private laws
during this period dealt with immigration issues or claims against the government. Of these
measures, 65% 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.
This report will be updated as necessary.
Congressional Research Service
Procedural Analysis of Private Laws Enacted: 1986-2013
Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Subject Matter of Private Laws ....................................................................................................... 1
Introduction Stage: Chamber of Origin ........................................................................................... 2
Committee Referral ......................................................................................................................... 2
Party Sponsorship ...................................................................................................................... 4
Geographic Sponsorship ............................................................................................................ 4
Cosponsors ................................................................................................................................ 5
Companion Bills ........................................................................................................................ 5
Method of Consideration ................................................................................................................. 5
House ......................................................................................................................................... 5
Senate ........................................................................................................................................ 5
Bills Passed Over in the House ........................................................................................................ 5
Amendments to Private Bills ........................................................................................................... 6
House ......................................................................................................................................... 6
Senate ........................................................................................................................................ 6
Resolving Differences ...................................................................................................................... 6
Time to Enactment ........................................................................................................................... 7
Figures
Figure 1. Subject of Private Laws: 1986-2013 ................................................................................ 2
Figure 2. House Committee Referrals for Private Bills Enacted, 1986-2013 .................................. 3
Figure 3. Senate Committee Referrals for Private Bills Enacted, 1986-2013 ................................. 3
Tables
Table 1. Party Sponsorship of Private Laws: 1986-2013 ................................................................. 4
Contacts
Author Contact Information............................................................................................................. 7
Congressional Research Service
Procedural Analysis of Private Laws Enacted: 1986-2013
Introduction
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 2013 (99th-113th Congresses), 170 private laws were enacted. This report
examines the broad distinctions that appear among these 170 measures in terms of their subject
matter, introduction, sponsorship and cosponsorship, referral, method of consideration in each
chamber, amendment, and ways in which any differences between the chambers’ versions of the
bill were reconciled. One private law was enacted in the 112th Congress (2011-2012) and, as of
this writing, none have been enacted in the 113th Congress (2013-2014).
Subject Matter of Private Laws
As Figure 1 demonstrates, from 1986 to 2013, 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.
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, House, Constitution, Jefferson’s Manual, and Rules of the House of Representatives, H.Doc. 111-157,
111th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 2011), §208.
3 For a discussion of private immigration measures, see CRS Report RL33024, Private Immigration Legislation, by
Margaret Mikyung Lee.
Congressional Research Service
1
Procedural Analysis of Private Laws Enacted: 1986-2013
Figure 1. Subject of Private Laws: 1986-2013
Source: Legislation Information System (LIS).
Introduction Stage: Chamber of Origin
Of the 170 private laws enacted between 1986 and 2013, 59 (35%) originated in the Senate and
111 (65%) originated in the House of Representatives.
Committee Referral
Historically, most private legislation introduced in Congress was either considered by various
claims committees established in each chamber4 or by committees overseeing immigration.5 The
1946 Legislative Reorganization Act,6 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 and Figure 3 demonstrate, 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
4 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.
5 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.
6 P.L. 79-601, 60 Stat. 812.
Congressional Research Service
2
Procedural Analysis of Private Laws Enacted: 1986-2013
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.)
Figure 2. House Committee Referrals for Private Bills Enacted, 1986-2013
Source: Legislation Information System (LIS).
Figure 3. Senate Committee Referrals for Private Bills Enacted, 1986-2013
Source: Legislation Information System (LIS).
Congressional Research Service
3
Procedural Analysis of Private Laws Enacted: 1986-2013
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, between 1987 and 2004, 71% to
88% of the measures passing the House under the Suspension of the Rules procedure were
authored by majority party members.7
An examination of the 170 private laws enacted since the 99th Congress, however, reveals a more
balanced breakdown by party affiliation. Over the two decade period, 73 private laws were
sponsored by Republican Members of Congress and 97 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: 1986-2013
Congressional Majority
Republican Sponsored
Democratic Sponsored
Private Laws
Private Laws
Democratic
38% 62%
Republican
56% 44%
Chambers Split
43% 57%
Source: Legislation Information System (LIS).
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 through the 113th
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 Florida8—were also the top four states in which Members sponsored private laws
during this period. Members from Alaska and Wyoming—the 47th and 50th 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.
7 CRS Report 97-901, Suspension of Rules in the House: Measure Sponsorship by Party, by Thomas P. Carr.
8 U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 Population Estimates, available at http://www.census.gov/popest/estimates.php.
Congressional Research Service
4
Procedural Analysis of Private Laws Enacted: 1986-2013
Cosponsors
Under House Rule XIII, private bills may not be cosponsored.9 Notwithstanding this prohibition,
one House measure that subsequently became law in the period examined did have cosponsors.10
The Senate places no limits on the cosponsorship of private measures. Of the 170 private laws
examined, 15 Senate bills had cosponsors.
Companion Bills
Just 23% of the 170 bills that became private laws enacted between 1986 and 2013 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 specific case at hand and the relatively narrow precedents governing which
requests for relief are acted upon.
Method of Consideration
House
The House has special procedures for considering private measures through a call of its Private
Calendar.11 Of the 170 private laws enacted between the 99th and 113th Congress, 151 were
considered under these procedures. Eleven bills were considered by unanimous consent; seven
were considered under the Suspension of the Rules procedure; and one passed under the call of
the Consent Calendar (a procedure which has since been abolished.)
Senate
Unlike the House, the Senate does not have unique procedures for the consideration of private
measures; they are dealt with in the same way as public bills. All 170 private measures enacted
between the 99th and 113th 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
9 William Holmes Brown , Charles W. Johnson, and John V. Sullivan, House Practice, A Guide to the Rules,
Precedents and Procedures of the House (Washington: GPO, 2011), ch. 6, §15, p. 179.
10 H.R. 2032, 100th Congress.
11 See CRS Report 98-628, Private Bills: Procedure in the House, by Richard S. Beth.
Congressional Research Service
5
Procedural Analysis of Private Laws Enacted: 1986-2013
being acted upon at the time.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
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 in committee or on the floor.
House
Of the 170 private laws enacted between 1986 and 2013:
• 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 170 private laws enacted between 1986 and 2013:
• 10 were reported from Senate committee with an amendment in the nature of a
substitute;
• 2 were reported from Senate committee with perfecting amendments; and
• 15 private bills were amended on the Senate floor.
Resolving Differences
Only 13% of the private laws enacted between 1986 and 2013 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 (“ping-ponging” the
bill) between the House and Senate was used to come into agreement.
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,” Associated Press, October 22, 1986.
Congressional Research Service
6
Procedural Analysis of Private Laws Enacted: 1986-2013
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, in which the time for Congress to deal with a particular case
may be longer than a single Congress. Between 1986 and 2013, 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 over two years.
During the same period, the longest case took more than 8,934 days—more than 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
Author Contact Information
Christopher M. Davis
Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process
cmdavis@crs.loc.gov, 7-0656
14 See S. 2042, 108th Congress.
15 See H.R. 2731 and H.R. 2732, 105th Congress.
Congressional Research Service
7