[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 7, Chapters 22 - 25]
[Chapter 24. Bills, Resolutions, and Memorials]
[A. Introductory; Various Types of Bills, Resolutions, and Other Mechanisms for Action]
[Â§ 3. Private Bills]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 4783-4791]
 
                               CHAPTER 24
 
              Bills, Resolutions, Petitions, and Memorials
 
    A. INTRODUCTORY; VARIOUS TYPES OF BILLS, RESOLUTIONS, AND OTHER 
                         MECHANISMS FOR ACTION
 
Sec. 3. Private Bills

    Private legislation is the means by which the Congress grants 
relief to ``. . . one or several specified persons, corporations, 
institutions, etc. .  . .'' (7) who may have no other legal 
remedy available to them. It also provides a means whereby honoraria 
are granted to individuals, but by far its most common usage pertains 
to granting a remedy to the personal and pecuniary grievances of 
individuals.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 3285.
 8. In the 92d Congress, for example, 609 bills and resolutions 
        regarding claims against the United States were referred to the 
        House Committee on the Judiciary and 2,144 bills and 
        resolutions concerning individual immigration problems. U.S. 
        House of Representatives. Final Legislative Calendar, Committee 
        on the Judiciary (92d Cong.), p. 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Private laws constitute a significant portion of the total number 
of laws passed by each Congress. For example, in the 92d Congress 161 
private laws and 607 public laws were enacted. (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. For a table listing private and public laws enacted in each 
        Congress since the 52d Congress, see Calendars of the United 
        States House of Representatives and History of Legislation, 
        Final Edition (92d Cong.), p. 261.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The distinction between public and private bills is sometimes 
difficult to make. A statutory definition of a private bill was nacted 
in 1895 (10) and amended in 1905.(11) However, 
this definition (12) was removed from title 44 of the United 
States Code when that title was enacted into positive law in 
1968.(13) Through the years the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Jan. 12, 1895, Ch. 23, Sec. 55, 28 Stat. 609.
11. Jan. 20, 1905, Ch. 50, Sec. 2, 33 Stat. 611.
12. ``. . . The term `private bill' shall be construed to mean all 
        bills for the relief of private parties, bills granting 
        pensions, bills removing political disabilities, and bills for 
        the survey of rivers and harbors.'' Codified at 44 USC Sec. 189 
        (1964 ed).
13. Oct. 22, 1968 Pub. L. No. 90-620, Sec. 706, 82 Stat. 1238, 1248.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4784]]

term ``private bill'' has been used to describe widely differing types 
of legislation.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 4 Hinds Precedents Sec. 3285.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since 1968, the preponderance of private laws enacted by the House 
has continued to be for the relief of individuals devoid of other legal 
remedy. Citizenship for a person or persons otherwise ineligible on a 
technicality is frequently granted by private law.
     A Speaker or former Speaker, and Members of Congress have on more 
than one occasion been granted permission to accept, or accept and 
wear, a foreign decoration,(15) when such acceptance would 
otherwise be constitutionally prohibited.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Priv. L. No. 89-61 (H.R. 10132); Priv. L. No. 91-244 (H.J. Res. 
        1420); Priv. L. No. 92-24 (H.J. Res. 850).
16. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 9 clause 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other purposes for which private laws have been enacted have 
included: permitting free entry to the United States of scientific and 
musical apparatus destined for use at specific colleges and 
universities; conveyance of real property and rights of the United 
States; relief of certain named private businesses; exemption from 
taxation of specific property in the District of Columbia; 
authorization for the Secretary of Agriculture to grant an easement 
over certain lands to a railroad company; and requirements that the 
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission determine or redetermine the 
validity of claims of named individuals against specified foreign 
governments.

    In the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946,(17) 
Congress limited the types of measures that may be considered as 
private bills:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Aug. 2, 1946, Ch. 753, 60 Stat. 812.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 131. No private bill or resolution (including so-called 
    omnibus claims or pension bills), and no amendment to any bill or 
    resolution, authorizing or directing (1) the payment of money for 
    property damages, for personal injuries or death for which suit may 
    be instituted under the Tort Claims Procedure as provided in Title 
    28, United States Code, or for a pension (other than to carry out a 
    provision of law or treaty stipulation); (2) the construction of a 
    bridge across a navigable stream; or (3) the correction of a 
    military or naval record, shall be received or considered in the 
    House.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 60 Stat. 831. This provision was incorporated into the rules of the 
        House in 1953. See Rule XXII clause 2, House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 852 (1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain of the categories in which private bills were banned under 
the act were delegated to other agencies by other sections of the act. 
The Secretaries of War, the Navy, and the Treasury were authorized to 
establish civilian

[[Page 4785]]

boards to review military and naval records to correct errors and 
remove any injustices.(19) The Federal Tort Claims Act 
provided administrative and judicial remedies in certain personal 
injury cases involving negligence of federal employees acting within 
the scope of their employment.(20) And general authority for 
the construction of bridges over the navigable waters of the United 
States was delegated to the Chief of Engineers and the Secretary of 
War.(21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Sec. 207, 60 Stat. 837, now at 10 USC Sec. 1552.
20. Title IV, Sec. Sec. 401-403, 60 Stat. 842.
21. Title V, Sec. Sec. 501-511, 60 Stat. 847.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today private bills considered and passed in the Congress fall 
largely into two major categories: claims cases and immigration and 
naturalization cases. Other less frequently introduced types of private 
bills include conveyances of real property to identified individuals or 
private groups, bills affecting military rank (though not correcting 
military records) of individuals, bills or resolutions paying tribute 
to or conferring awards or medals upon living persons, bills 
documenting private vessels, and bills permitting U.S. citizens to be 
employed by foreign governments.

Claims Cases

    Since the United States may not be sued absent the authority of an 
act of Congress,(1) Congress has over the years enacted a 
series of laws allowing the administrative and judicial settlement of 
claims against the United States in order to alleviate the 
determination of individual cases by means of private legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. United States v Clarke, 8 Pet. (33 U.S.) 436 (1834).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Court of Claims was created by the Act of Feb. 24, 
1855,(2) ``. . . primarily to relieve the pressure on 
Congress caused by the volume of private bills.'' (3) Under 
this act the court was directed to hear claims and report its findings 
and recommendations to Congress. By the Act of Mar. 3, 
1863,(4) the judgments of the court were made final, but 
appeals to the Supreme Court were allowed in certain cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.  Ch. 122, 10 Stat. 612.
 3. Opinion of Justice Harlan, Glidden Company v Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530, 
        552 (1962).
 4. Ch. 92, Sec. 5, 12 Stat. 765, 766.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1887, Congress enacted the Tucker Act the (5) whereby 
the jurisdiction of the court was greatly expanded. Its present form in 
the revised title 28 provides:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Mar. 3, 1887, Ch. 359, 24 Stat. 505.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Court of Claims shall have jurisdiction to render judgment 
    upon any claim against the United States founded either upon the 
    Constitution, or any Act of Congress, or any regulation of

[[Page 4786]]

    an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract 
    with the United States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages 
    in cases not sounding in tort. . . .(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 28 USC Sec. 1491.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress has also authorized suits against the United States in the 
Court of Claims for patent infringement,(7) in U.S. District 
Court for admiralty and maritime torts,(8) and in U.S. 
District Court for torts by employees of the government while acting 
within the scope of their employment.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 28 USC Sec. 1498 (1970 ed.).
 8. Feb. 28, 1920, Ch. 95, Sec. 2, 41 Stat. 525, 46 USC Sec. 742 (1970 
        ed.); and Mar. 3, 1925, Ch. 428, Sec. 1, 43 Stat. 1112, 46 USC 
        Sec. 781 (1970 ed.).
 9. Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 USC Sec. Sec. 1346(b), 2671 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the Congress has established the Customs 
Court,(10) the Court of Customs and Patent 
Appeals,(11) and the Tax Court (12) to hear 
claims cases against the government in these areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 28 USC Sec. 1581.
11. 28 USC Sec. 211 et seq.
12. 28 USC Sec. 7441 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cases that do not fall into any of the above categories or where a 
statute of limitations under one of those judicial or administrative 
remedies has run, become possible subjects for private legislation to 
be considered by the Congress itself. However, the separation between 
judicial and congressional determination of claims cases is not 
complete since Congress frequently refers private bills to the Court of 
Claims (13) for a determination of the nature of the claims 
``. . . and the amount, if any, legally or equitably due from the 
United States. . . .''(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 28 USC Sec. 1492.
14. 28 USC Sec. 2509. The congressional reference of claims has 
        generated some question as to the nature of the Court of Claims 
        as legislative or constitutional. That court and the Court of 
        Customs and Patent Appeals were declared constitutional under 
        art. III in Glidden v Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (1962). However, no 
        clear standard for pronouncing a court to be legislative (art. 
        I) rather than constitutional (art. III) has been announced by 
        the Supreme Court. See: Constitution of the United States of 
        America pp. 590-596, S. Doc. No. 92-82, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. 
        (1972).
            It is clear that a court is of a legislative character when 
        it performs functions of a legislative or advisory nature which 
        are subject to review by a legislative or executive body. See 
        Gordon v United States, 5 Wall. (72 U.S.) 419 (1867). Thus, the 
        Court of Claims commissioners, not the Court of Claims judges, 
        are performing a nonjudicial advisory function under the 
        congressional reference statute (28 USC Sec. 2509(b)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Perhaps the clearest, although indirect, statement upholding the 
constitutional basis of private claims legislation was made by

[[Page 4787]]

the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Pope v United 
States.(15) That case was decided on appeal to the Supreme 
Court after the Court of Claims had refused to give effect to a private 
law directing that court to render judgment for the petitioner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 323 U.S. 1 (1944).
            The Supreme Court on two occasions has upheld the validity 
        of private laws affecting controversies between individuals. 
        Those cases were Maynard v Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888), and 
        Paramino Co. v Marshall, 309 U.S. 370 (1940). The former 
        involved a private law granting an individual an ex parte 
        divorce in the Oregon Territory, and the latter involved a 
        private law directing the reopening of a work injury case 
        against a private insurance carrier under the Longshoremen's 
        and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. A commentator has 
        suggested that such laws would not be upheld today under modern 
        concepts of equal protection (Private Bills in Congress, 79 
        Harv. L. Rev. 1684, 1696.) Private bills now generally do not 
        affect rights between individuals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioner first sued for the costs incurred in performing 
additional work in connection with a contract with the government for 
the construction of a tunnel as part of the water system of the 
District of Columbia. The Court of Claims denied these costs since such 
additional work was not specified in the contract. After a review of 
the case was denied by the Supreme Court, the petitioner obtained a 
private law from Congress directing the Court of Claims to order 
payment of the costs in question. The Court of Claims declined to 
follow this private law on the grounds that it was an invasion of a 
judicial function which that court had already exercised.

    The Supreme Court ruled that the private law in question did not 
set aside the former judgment but created a new obligation on the part 
of the government where none existed before. Mr. Chief Justice Stone, 
writing for the Court, went on to say:

        We perceive no constitutional obstacle to Congress' imposing on 
    the Government a new obligation where there had been none before, 
    for work performed by petitioner which was beneficial to the 
    Government and for which Congress thought (petitioner) had not been 
    adequately compensated. The power of Congress to provide for the 
    payment of debts, conferred by Sec. 8 of Article I of the 
    Constitution, is not restricted to payment of those obligations 
    which are legally binding on the Government. It extends to the 
    creation of such obligations in recognition of claims which are 
    merely moral or honorary.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Pope v United States, 323 U.S. 1 at p. 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A similar interpretation of article I, section 8, clause 1 of the

[[Page 4788]]

Constitution was announced by the Supreme Court in 1895 in the case of 
United States v Realty Company.(17) Although that case did 
not involve a private law, it did provide to a class of individuals the 
type of relief that is dispensed under a private bill. The Court said, 
``The term `debts' includes those debts or claims which rest upon a 
merely equitable or honorary obligation, and which would not be 
recoverable in a court of law if existing against an individual.'' 
(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 163 U.S. 427.
18. Id. at p. 440.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1949, the Court of Claims, citing both the Pope and Realty Co. 
cases, made clear that the ``debts'' of the United States to be paid by 
private legislation are not limited in their determination by ``. . . 
principles of right and justice as administered by courts of equity, 
but (by) the broader moral sense based upon general equitable 
consideration. . . .'' (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Burkhardt v United States, 84 F Supp 553, 559 (Ct. Cl. 1949).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Immigration Cases

    The second major subject of private legislation now considered in 
Congress involves situations arising under the immigration and 
naturalization laws.(1) Specifically, Congress has acted to 
exempt individuals from the application of the law in hardship cases 
where the law would otherwise prohibit entry into or require 
deportation from the United States, or where individuals are capable of 
rendering service to the nation but are otherwise incapable of 
fulfilling citizenship requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 8 USC Sec. Sec. 1101-1503 (1970).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Deportation cases are inherently difficult because, by the nature 
of the process, an individual subject to deportation is likely to be 
removed from the country before a private bill exempting him can be 
introduced and considered in Congress. To alleviate this problem the 
Department of Justice and the House and Senate Judiciary Committees 
follow a procedure under which the deportation of an individual will be 
halted when a private bill has been introduced on his behalf and the 
Committee on the Judiciary of either the House or Senate has requested 
a report from the Immigration and Naturalization Service.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  2. Rules of the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on 
        Immigration, U.S. House of Representatives, Rule No. 3, 93d 
        Cong. (1973). Rule 4 of these rules provides further, that a 
        departmental report shall not be requested in cases of those 
        ``. . . who have entered the United States as nonimmigrants, 
        stowaways, in transit, deserting crewmen, or by surreptitiously 
        entering without inspection through the land or sea borders of 
        the United States.''
            The committee has subsequently placed further conditions 
        and restrictions on when and in what types of cases it will 
        request a report.
            Under a prior practice, mere introduction of a bill was 
        sufficient to stay deportation. The procedure was recognized in 
        United States ex rel. Knauff v McGrath (171 F2d 839, 2d cir. 
        1950), where a writ of habeas corpus was issued staying the 
        deportation of one on whose behalf a private bill granting 
        admission has been introduced in Congress.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4789]]

                         Collateral References
Col. M. T. Bennett. Private Claims Acts and Congressional References, 
    Reprinted by House Committee on the Judiciary. 90th Cong. 2d Sess. 
    (Committee Print 1968).
Private Bills in Congress. 79 Harv. L. Rev. 1684 (1966).
Private Bills and the Immigration Law. 69 Harv. L. Rev. 1083 (1956).
Gelhorn and Lauer. Congressional Settlement of Tort Claims Against the 
    United States, 55 Colum. L. Rev. 1 
    (1955).
                          -------------------

Authorizing Acceptance of Foreign Honors or Awards

Sec. 3.1 A private bill authorizing a former Speaker of the House to 
    accept an award from a foreign government passed the House on the 
    Private Calendar.

    On Aug. 3, 1965,(3) the House passed a private bill 
(H.R. 10132) to authorize the Honorable Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, a former Speaker, to accept from the Government of 
Portugal the award of the Military Order of Christ with the rank of 
Grande Officer.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 111 Cong. Rec. 19210, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. See also H.R. 11227, authorizing Representative Eugene J. Keogh 
        (N.Y.), to accept the award of the Order of Isabella the 
        Catholic from Spain. 112 Cong. Rec. 12480, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., 
        June 7, 1966.
            Congress has by law consented to the acceptance of 
        decorations by Members, officers, or employees of the House. 
        [See 5 USC Sec. 7342(d), Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act, 
        Pub. L. No. 95-105.] The Committee on Standards of Official 
        Conduct has promulgated regulations concerning such acceptance 
        and retention of decorations and gifts from foreign governments 
        (see Ethics Manual for Members and Employees, published each 
        Congress by the committee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indemnifying a Foreign Government

Sec. 3.2 A bill to indemnify a foreign government for injury to its 
    nationals is a public bill.

    On Apr. 6, 1936,(5) the Clerk called on the Consent 
Calendar
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 80 Cong. Rec. 5027, 5028, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4790]]

the bill (H.R. 11961) authorizing an appropriation for the payment of 
the claim of General Higinio Alvarez, a Mexican citizen, with respect 
to certain lands in Arizona. Mr. Jesse P. Wolcott, of Michigan, raised 
a point of order against consideration of the bill on the grounds that 
it was of a private character and should be on the Private Calendar 
instead of the Consent Calendar.

    The Speaker (6) ruled, ``In the opinion of the Chair, 
this is a public bill. It provides that part of this money shall be 
paid to the Government of Mexico.'' (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
 7. Speaker Byrns cited Cannon's Procedure (p. 335, 1963 ed.) for 
        authority that, ``A bill to indemnify a foreign government for 
        injury to its nationals'' is a public bill. For a similar 
        ruling by Speaker William B. Bankhead (Ala.), see 81 Cong. Rec. 
         649, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 1, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indian Claims

Sec. 3.3 A bill dealing with Indians as a nation and not with Indians 
    as individuals is a public bill.

     On Feb. 4, 1931,(8) the Clerk called on the House 
Calendar the bill (S. 3165) conferring jurisdiction upon the Court of 
Claims to hear, consider, and report upon a claim of the Choctaw and 
Chickasaw Indian nations or tribes for fair and just compensation for 
certain lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 73 Cong. Rec. 3969-71, 71st Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, raised a point of order 
against the bill contending that it was a private bill:

        A private bill is a bill for the relief of one or several 
    specified persons, corporations, institutions, etc., and is 
    distinguished from a public bill, which relates to public matters 
    and deals with individuals by classes only.

    The Chair (9) ruled that, ``. . . As the Chair 
recollects the law, the United States deals with the Choctaw and 
Chickasaw tribes as nations and through treaties. Therefore this bill 
deals with the Indians as a nation and not with Indians as individuals. 
The Chair believes that this is a public bill and is properly on the 
public calendar, and overrules that point of order. . . .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Earl C. Michener (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disposition of Private Bills

Sec. 3.4 Where a bill affects an individual or particular individuals 
    or corporations or institutions, it should go to the Private 
    Calendar.

    On Mar. 17, 1930,(10) Mr. William H. Stafford, of 
Wisconsin,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 72 Cong. Rec. 5454, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4791]]

raised a point of order against the consideration on the Consent 
Calendar of the bill (H.R. 5917), for the relief of certain newspapers 
(for advertising services rendered the Public Health Service), that it 
was a private bill and not properly on the Consent Calendar.

    The Chair (11) ruled that, ``. . . Where a bill affects 
an individual, individuals, corporations, institutions, and so forth, 
it should and does go to the Private Calendar. Where it applies to a 
class and not to individuals as such, it then becomes a general bill 
and would be entitled to a place on the Consent Calendar. In the 
judgment of the Chair this bill, while affecting a class of concerns, 
specifies individuals, and for the purpose of the rule the Chair holds 
that the bill is improperly on this [Consent] Calendar and transfers it 
as of the date of the original reference to the Private Calendar.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Earl C. Michener (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------