[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 19022-19024]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1620
    GIVING CONGRESSIONAL CONSENT TO MISSOURI AND ILLINOIS BI-STATE 
                           DEVELOPMENT AGENCY

  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
joint resolution (S.J. Res. 22) 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, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The text of the joint resolution is as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 22

       Whereas 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;
       Whereas the Congress in consenting to the compact between 
     Missouri and Illinois creating the Bi-State Development 
     Agency and the Bi-State Metropolitan District provided that 
     no power shall be exercised by the Bi-State Agency until such 
     power has been conferred upon the Bi-State Agency by the 
     legislatures of the States to the compact and approved by an 
     Act of Congress;
       Whereas such States previously enacted legislation 
     providing that the Bi-State Agency had the power to issue 
     notes, bonds, or other instruments in writing provided they 
     shall mature in not to exceed 30 years, and Congress 
     consented to such power; and
       Whereas such States have now enacted legislation amending 
     this power: Now therefore, be it
       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled,

     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 December 17, 2010.

     SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF ACT OF AUGUST 31, 1950.

       The provisions of the Act of August 31, 1950 (64 Stat. 568) 
     shall apply to the amendment approved under this joint 
     resolution to the same extent as if such amendment was 
     conferred under the provisions of the compact consented to in 
     such Act.

     SEC. 3. RIGHT TO ALTER, AMEND, OR REPEAL.

       The right to alter, amend, or repeal this joint resolution 
     is expressly reserved.

     SEC. 4. 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.

  The text of the amendment is as follows:
  Amendment:
  Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert:

     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. APPLICATION OF ACT OF AUGUST 31, 1950.

       The provisions of the Act of August 31, 1950 (64 Stat. 568) 
     shall apply to the amendment approved under this joint 
     resolution to the same extent as if such amendment was 
     conferred under the provisions of the compact consented to in 
     such Act.

     SEC. 3. RIGHT TO ALTER, AMEND, OR REPEAL.

       The right to alter, amend, or repeal this joint resolution 
     is expressly reserved.

     SEC. 4. 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.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gohmert) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.


                             General Leave

  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous materials on S.J. Res. 22, as amended, currently 
under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The Founding Fathers did not believe that the Federal Government 
should try to solve every problem in the country. Instead, they 
believed that local problems should have local solutions. This system 
of federalism became the bedrock of the Constitution.
  One particular aspect of our federalist system is found in the 
Compact Clause of the Constitution. The clause recognizes agreements or 
contracts that States make among themselves, with congressional 
approval when necessary. Today, there are approximately 200 active 
interstate compacts addressing a variety of issues that range from 
environmental and energy policy to natural resources to traffic and 
transportation. Rather than wait for a one-size-fits-all program from 
Washington, D.C., the Constitution allows States to solve these kinds 
of problems for themselves.
  In 1949, Missouri and Illinois formed a compact to create the Bi-
State Development Agency. The agency's mission is to facilitate and 
coordinate economic and infrastructure development in the St. Louis 
metropolitan area. Among other projects, the agency runs the public 
transportation system in St. Louis. The agency does not have taxing 
authority, but it may issue bonds. For example, in the 1960s, the 
agency sold bonds to finance construction of the tram to the top of the 
Gateway Arch, which it operates today. The compact allows the agency to 
sell 30-year bonds. Last year, most States adopted legislation to amend 
the compact and allow the agency to issue 40-year bonds.
  In addition to other capital improvements, the agency could use 
revenue from these 40-year bonds to support the CityArchRiver 2015 
initiative. The purpose of the CityArchRiver 2015 is to better connect 
downtown St. Louis with the Gateway Arch and the Jefferson National 
Expansion Memorial National Park. The project also involves building 
elevated walkways across the river to Illinois.
  Senate Joint Resolution 22 gives congressional approval to this 
amendment, the Missouri-Illinois Interstate Compact. The Judiciary 
Committee marked up its companion, House Joint Resolution 70, on 
September 21. The suspension version of Senate Joint Resolution 22 
contains one amendment, to correct a minor drafting error regarding the 
effective date. With this amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 22 will be 
effective upon the date of enactment.
  In conclusion, I'm pleased to see this feature of our federalist 
system at work. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
resolution and look forward to its swift passage.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Members of the House, under the Constitution, Article I, section 10, 
clause 3, these kinds of interstate compacts must be ratified by the 
House of Representatives. Senate Joint Resolution 22 gives 
congressional approval to an agreement between Missouri and Illinois to 
amend the interstate compact establishing the Bi-State Development 
Agency.
  My colleague on the Judiciary, Judge Gohmert, has expertly described 
what

[[Page 19023]]

it is that brings us here, but I would merely add that the 
congressionally approved interstate compact establishing the Bi-State 
Development Agency in 1950 serves as the primary provider of the public 
transportation for the St. Louis metropolitan area. It also develops, 
maintains, owns, and operates bridges, airports, wharves, docks, grain 
elevators, industrial parks, parking facilities, refuse and waste 
handling facilities, as well as fuel, energy, air, water, rail, or 
commodity storage areas. Also, there is a 40-year maximum maturity 
period for bonds and other financial instruments which will allow the 
agency to finance projects for longer periods of time.
  I congratulate my colleague from St. Louis, William Lacy Clay, a 
distinguished Member from Missouri whose father was in on the first 
interstate compact, and now we're proud that he and other of his 
colleagues from both Missouri and Illinois are supporting this Senate 
Joint Resolution 22. I urge its favorable consideration.
  I would like to yield the distinguished gentleman as much time as he 
may consume.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. CLAY. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the chairman and ranking 
member of the full committee and the chairman and ranking member of the 
subcommittee for their leadership and for moving this critical 
resolution.
  I'm proud to have introduced the House version of this joint 
resolution, and it accomplishes two very good things: S.J. Res. 22 
approves an important amendment to a compact between two States.
  As was mentioned before, in 1949, Missouri and Illinois entered into 
an agreement to foster ``regional economic development through 
excellence in transportation.'' The compact created the Bi-State 
Development Agency. Congress approved it, and has approved several 
amendments over the last 6 decades.
  The agency, now known as ``Metro,'' operates the St. Louis 
Metropolitan region's public transportation system. It has more than 
2,400 employees and carries over 55 million passengers each year.
  This resolution approves a small but crucial change to the Bi-State 
Compact. Both State legislatures have passed it, and both Governors 
have signed it. This is a necessary and good amendment, and there is no 
negative impact to the Nation or to States. As such, Congress should 
approve it.
  This resolution also enables the Congress to fulfill one of its 
constitutional duties. And I agree with my good friend, Mr. Gohmert, 
that Congress should not overstep its authority. While we do not always 
agree on the limits of that power, we agree on this resolution and on 
the constitutional authority for it.
  Article I, section 10, clause 3 of the Constitution says that ``No 
State shall, without the consent of Congress . . . enter into an 
agreement or compact with another State.''
  The Framers of the Constitution required that Congress would have to 
approve these agreements to protect the interests and rights of the 
other States. This also protects the rights of the citizens within the 
States that are party to the compact by providing Federal oversight.
  This clause was a compromise. There were those who wanted to give the 
Federal Government greater power over the States, including the 
authority to regulate to negate State laws. Others felt very strongly 
that this would be overly nationalist and broad.
  The Constitutional Convention, rather than giving the Federal 
Government complete control over everything, or nothing, compromised. 
They compromised for the good of the Nation. They granted the Federal 
Government blanket authority over some areas. They also limited the 
Federal Government's authority in others. And they required 
congressional approval for agreements between the States.
  This compromise, one of many that formed our great country, 
demonstrates that two opposing sides, who each feel passionately about 
their point of view, can come together and compromise for the good of 
the Nation. They each put aside their well-intentioned and strongly 
held belief that they were completely correct, and that the other side 
was completely wrong, and found a way to work out the differences. Each 
gave up something they held dear in order to achieve a higher good: 
That was the creation of a strong Nation, a Nation that would endure.
  Madam Speaker, there is a lesson here, a 224-year old lesson for us 
who serve in Congress today.
  Once again, I thank the chairman and ranking member.
  Mr. GOHMERT. I have no requests for time, and I continue to reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield as much time as she 
may consume to the distinguished gentlelady from Houston, Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee), a senior member of the committee.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I want to applaud the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), the ranking member, and my 
colleague from Missouri, and to echo the comments of Mr. Conyers on his 
father, but also the stellar work that he is doing. As a member of the 
delegation, we can always count on Missouri to test the Constitution 
and to ask the United States to do what is right.
  I am rising to support this compact. Frankly, I want to really 
embrace it because it is maybe one aspect of legislation, Madam 
Speaker, that we are actually bipartisan and supporting it without 
hesitation.
  I, frankly, believe that the Federal Government should not overreach 
as it relates to compacts that have been between States. But I do think 
that regulation is key and crucial to give States extra leverage.
  So let me congratulate Mr. Clay. And I look forward to supporting 
this legislation.
  I will add, as well, that when I think of bonds, I think of 
opportunities for building, using resources to restore. And by the very 
nature of that, Madam Speaker, we're talking about creating jobs.
  So I add another applause to this particular legislation coming out 
of the Judiciary Committee because, for once, among many bills that we 
have been debating from the Judiciary Committee, this bill might 
enhance opportunities for jobs. I think of bonds. I think of jobs. I 
think of utilization of funds from bonds as they mature. And this is a 
good thing.
  I'm sad to say that in the course of the time that we've spent, maybe 
over the last 3 weeks, when we could have actually engaged in 
reasonable debate on how we raise the payroll tax, how do we extend the 
payroll tax cut, and how do we extend the unemployment benefits, we 
have not been able to do that.
  So let me just share my assessment of the folk who are needing 
unemployment benefits. Personal savings have gone. Family savings have 
gone. They've exhausted the 401(k)s and they have tapped every other 
fungible amount of dollars that they might have, maybe even to the 
kiddie's saving account that started with 25 cents, leaving many 
individuals in this harmonious, humble holiday time, desperate, 
desperate for a job, desperate for assistance, desperate for being able 
to pay their mortgage, desperate for paying their rent.
  Madam Speaker, maybe we should also say, desperate in getting one 
more allotment of food stamps. Maybe we're not aware that there are 46 
million families on food stamps, and most of them wait all the way to 
the exhaustion of those food stamps; find themselves, before the next 
opportunity for food stamps, literally drinking water, making tea, and 
eating crackers. There was an expose on this just recently on one of 
our cable stations, families waiting until 12 midnight to watch and see 
if their account has in it the amount of money they needed to enter a 
grocery store to feed their children.
  I don't believe that we can leave this sacred and august institution 
without, one, providing relief on extending the payroll tax cut, giving 
$1,000 and $1,500 to the American working class. And clearly, I don't 
believe that we can leave without providing for unemployment. Every 
dollar invested in unemployment insurance yields $1.52 in economic 
growth, and at least 200,000 jobs

[[Page 19024]]

will be lost if Republicans block extension of the unemployment 
insurance.
  In fact, frankly, I know that Scrooge would not find a place of 
comfort in this House.

                              {time}  1640

  We have always risen to the occasion of helping the most desperate. 
Whether it has been under Franklin Delano Roosevelt in World War II, 
where he had to put the apple sellers back to work, or whether it was 
when our President had to stop the bleeding with the $800 billion 
stimulus, we have always risen to be able to find a way to move our 
economy. And if we would tell the truth, we would see that our economy 
is percolating along.
  So in the tribute of President Obama, who speaks today in Kansas in 
the same place that President Teddy Roosevelt spoke about opportunity 
for Americans, I'm asking for the Members of Congress to come to the 
floor and give opportunity for Americans.
  I will close by saying to my friends, there are many good friends who 
are running for President. Many of us have worked with them. And 
anytime an American wants to offer themselves to serve this country, I 
have no angst with them, no matter how much I disagree with their 
policy. But let me be very clear, as a child that grew up poor, lived 
with neighbors who were poor--not in our minds, but certainly by our 
economics--I want to make the record very clear: poor children have 
role models because poor families get up every day and go to work. And 
the solution to poor children being the best that they can be is not a 
Donald Trump apprenticeship, and it sure isn't to get rid of the 
working janitors who are supporting their families and put the poor 
children to work.
  I hope that we can do better than that, Madam Speaker, and get back 
to work and make sure we extend the payroll tax for working families. 
And let's extend the unemployment insurance for the 99ers.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to 
the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).
  Mr. TONKO. I thank the Representative from Michigan for the 
opportunity to speak to this measure and to really express concern 
about the inordinate time that we are spending on measures that allow 
us to harm the air that we breathe and the water that we drink.
  The American people are asking us to set priorities here that focus 
on job creation. They're demanding that this body focus on jobs and 
helping rebuild our economy. Instead, we seek to be spending hours 
debating regulatory and bureaucratic measures that are flawed and would 
dramatically undermine the ability of our government to protect the air 
that we breathe and the water that we drink. Instead, I would suggest 
that our time be better spent focusing on putting more money in the 
pockets of American workers, empowering our middle class.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TONKO. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. GOHMERT. I thank the gentleman.
  If our time would be better spent on those things, we would be glad 
to withdraw the suspension on your suggestion and just drop it right 
now. We will be glad to do that. I will make that offer.
  Mr. TONKO. Madam Speaker, might I suggest that during this holiday 
season, as the American public struggles to pay bills that range from 
gas bills to groceries that are required for their mortgages, again, 
the focus should be on job creation. And the payroll tax holiday is 
nearing its expiration. This body should act to extend that tax cut for 
hardworking middle class American families. A failure to do so would 
result in job losses, a reduction in economic activity, and higher 
taxes for many families when they can least afford it.
  So my suggestion here is to stop wasting time on less important 
priorities and start focusing on creating jobs and standing up for our 
middle class, enabling them to strengthen their purchasing power and to 
enable our economic recovery to be as vital and strong as possible.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOHMERT. As a closing comment, I have come to know the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Clay), my friend across the aisle, and hold him in 
very high regard. I appreciate very much his comments earlier about 
what this compact means to Illinois and to Missouri. I know Mr. Clay 
has been a leading proponent of this happening, and I really very much 
appreciate his comments. This will not provide jobs across the country, 
but it solves a problem. It will ease things for those two States so 
that jobs should be easier.
  And I was totally serious when I offered my colleague who was saying 
that we were wasting our time on this--I know Mr. Clay and many others 
have spent a great deal of time on this, and I didn't think the 
Democrats that were pushing this bill so hard were wasting our time. I 
think it's a very legitimate use of our time.
  Some people like to confuse the term ``interstate,'' as used in the 
Constitution; and they want the term ``interstate'' to be expanded, as 
it has sometimes, to apply to nothing but activity wholly within one 
State. The Supreme Court has even given some regard to those kinds of 
arguments, but this is not one of those cases. This is a matter that's 
been taken up and passed by the Senate, and we should pass it today. It 
takes up a matter clearly between two States that makes it interstate.
  And then it is not the State of Illinois or Missouri coming and 
begging for the Federal Government to take over a State responsibility. 
It is two States with different opinions, different concerns, but 
wanting things to work together for good, coming to a solution; and 
then the Federal Government, since it is interstate, must recognize 
that compact. I think it is an appropriate thing to do. I don't think 
the Democrats who are pushing this bill were wasting our time. I think 
it's an appropriate use of Federal time.
  With that, I would urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Noem). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution, S.J. Res. 22, as 
amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the joint resolution, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________