The number of bills enacted by the United States Congress has fallen over the last decades. The 118th Congress enacted a total of 274 bills between 2023 and 2025. Comparatively, the 95th Congress enacted a total of *** pieces of legislation.

The statistic provides information about the congressional productivity in the United States in first 19 months of its two-year term from the ***** Congress in 1995 to the ***** Congress, as of *********. Between 2013 and ************* the ***** U.S. Congress had enacted *** substantive laws.

This dataset contains information on New York City bills from 1998 through 2024. The New York City Council is the City’s legislative body, responsible for proposing, debating, and voting on legislation that affects all aspects of city governance. The legislative process for Introductions in NYC follows these steps: Bill Introduced – A bill is introduced by a Council Member and assigned a number. Committee Hearings – The bill is referred to a committee for review, where public hearings may be held for discussion, public comment, and stakeholder engagement. Committee Vote – The committee votes on whether to advance the bill to the full Council. Full Council Vote – If approved by the committee, the bill is voted on by the entire Council. A majority vote is required for passage. Mayoral Action – Once passed by the Council, the bill is sent to the Mayor, who may sign it into law, veto it, or allow it to become law without a signature. If vetoed, the Council can override the veto with a two-thirds majority vote. Enactment – Once signed or passed via override, the bill is assigned a local law number and becomes part of the city’s legal code. Bills may be enacted immediately, or upon a date defined in the bill. This dataset provides information on all introductions, regardless of whether they were enacted.

The United States Code ("Code") contains the general and permanent laws of the United States, arranged into 54 broad titles according to subject matter. The organization of the Code was originally established by Congress in 1926 with the enactment of the act of June 30, 1926, chapter 712. Since then, 27 of the titles, referred to as positive law titles, have been restated and enacted into law by Congress as titles of the Code. The remaining titles, referred to as non-positive law titles, are made up of sections from many acts of Congress that were either included in the original Code or subsequently added by the editors of the Code, i.e., the Office of the Law Revision Counsel, and its predecessors in the House of Representatives. Positive law titles are identified by an asterisk on the Search & Browse page. For an explanation of the meaning of positive law, see the Positive Law Codification page.

Each title of the Code is subdivided into a combination of smaller units such as subtitles, chapters, subchapters, parts, subparts, and sections, not necessarily in that order. Sections are often subdivided into a combination of smaller units such as subsections, paragraphs, subparagraphs, clauses, subclauses, and items. In the case of a positive law title, the units are determined by Congress in the laws that enact and later amend the title. In the case of a non-positive law title, the organization of the title since 1926 has been determined by the editors of the Code and has generally followed the organization of the underlying acts 1 as much as possible. For example, chapter 7 of title 42 sets out the titles, parts, and sections of the Social Security Act as corresponding subchapters, parts, and sections of the chapter.

In addition to the sections themselves, the Code includes statutory provisions set out as statutory notes, the Constitution, several sets of Federal court rules, and certain Presidential documents, such as Executive orders, determinations, notices, and proclamations, that implement or relate to statutory provisions in the Code. The Code does not include treaties, agency regulations, State or District of Columbia laws, or most acts that are temporary or special, such as those that appropriate money for specific years or that apply to only a limited number of people or a specific place. For an explanation of the process of determining which new acts are included in the Code, see the About Classification page.

The Code also contains editorially created source credits, notes, and tables that provide information about the source of Code sections, their arrangement, the references they contain, and their history.

The law contained in the Code is the product of over 200 years of legislating. Drafting styles have changed over the years, and the resulting differences in laws are reflected in the Code. Similarly, Code editorial styles and policies have evolved over the 80-plus years since the Code was first adopted. As a result, not all acts have been handled in a consistent manner in the Code over time. This guide explains the editorial styles and policies currently used to produce the Code, but the reader should be aware that some things may have been done differently in the past. However, despite the evolution of style over the years, the accuracy of the information presented in the Code has always been, and will always remain, a top priority.

Content

This dataset is a snapshot of the XML version of the United States Code. It is not a suitable for any form of legal work and is intended for research purposes only.

The data are stored in a large json dictionary, indexed by the title of the code.

Acknowledgements

This dataset was released by the United States Government Publishing Office. You can find the original dataset here.

This data set is a list of bills passed by the State House of Assembly in 2013. It contains a summarized information on the type of bills passed, bill sponsor(s), legislative constituency of the bill sponsor(s) and other salient information.

Brazilian? You can read a Portuguese version of this article here.

Context

Last year, while I was attending a data science course in Germany, my country was impeaching its president. My colleagues asked me to explain what was happening in Brazil and the possible political outcomes in South America. Although I was able to give a general context and tell multiple arguments in favor and against the impeachment, deep inside, my answer was "I really don't know".

Understanding what happens in Politics is something that takes a lot of effort and research. When I decided I had to use my tech skills to make myself a better citizen, I dived into government data and started Operation Serenata de Amor.

After reporting hundreds of politicians for small acts of corruption and learning how to encourage the population to engage in the democratic processes, my studies drove me to understand the legislative activity.

Brazilians elect 594 citizens to be their representatives in the National Congress. How can we be sure that they are not defending their own interests or those who paid for their campaigns? My way, as a data scientist, is to ask the data.

Content

The National Congress of Brazil is composed of a Lower (Chamber of Deputies) and an Upper House (Federal Senate). In the first version of this dataset, you are going to find data only from the Chamber of Deputies. With 513 representatives, 86% of the congresspeople, I hope you have enough data to explore for some time.

Would be impossible for me, a citizen without government ties, to collect this data without the help of public servants. I processed 9,717 fixed-width files and 73 XML's made officially available by the Chamber of Deputies and created 5 CSV's containing the same information. Multiple fields of the same file telling the same thing (e.g. body_id, body_name and body_abbreviation) were removed.

Data on session attendance, votes, and propositions since past century were collected and scripted in a reproducible manner. The data collection and pre-processing scripts are available in a GitHub repository, under an open source license.

Everything was collected from the Chamber of Deputies website at December 27, 2017, containing the whole legislative activity of the year. Presence and votes date from 1999, propositions go as far as 1946.

When in question about the legislative process and how the sessions work in real world, the Internal Regulation of the Chamber of Deputies is the best Portuguese documentation for research. It's free!

Acknowledgements

Since the data was collected from a government website and the Brazilian law states that access to this information is free to any citizen, I am placing my own work published here in Public Domain.

I'd like to thank the hundreds of people financially supporting the work of Operation Serenata de Amor and those responsible for passing the Information Access bill in 2011.

Inspiration

The legislative activity should tell the history while it's happening. How much has the Congress changed over the past decades? Do the congresspeople maintain the same political views or they vary on a weekly basis? Do people vote together with their state or party peers? How often? Can you model an algorithm to tell us the real parties inside Brazilian Congress?

An executive order is one of the most commonly used form of administrative action taken by the President of the United States. It is where an order or directive regarding the management of the U.S. government is signed into law by the president. Executive orders are generally used by presidents to influence U.S. laws and the administration of the country, without the need for a vote in Congress or the Supreme Court; although these orders are subject to judicial review, and can be challenged by the courts or another branch of government. If deemed unlawful or unconstitutional, the order will be revoked or cancelled, and a president may also revoke, cancel or amend any executive order that they, or any other presidents, have made. The U.S.' first 25 presidents signed a combined total of 1,262 executive orders in roughly 112 years, averaging at around 12 per year, however there was a large increase in the number of orders issued in the first half of the twentieth century. Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th U.S. president, was the first to issue more than one thousand executive orders alone; while Woodrow Wilson, who was in office during the First World War, signed more than 1,800. Franklin D. Roosevelt The president who signed the most executive orders was Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR), who, during his twelve years in office, signed more than a quarter of all executive orders ever published. While FDR did serve over four years more than any other president, he still issued the highest number of average annual executive orders, with over three hundred per year. FDR was in office throughout most of the Second World War, although the majority of these orders came in his earlier years in office (more than a thousand orders were signed in 1933 and 1934), as he used his New Deal policies to lead the U.S. through its economic recovery from the Great Depression. Roosevelt's most controversial order, however, did relate to the Second World War; this was Order 9066, which saw approximately 120,000 people of Japanese descent, and almost 15,000 ethnic Germans and Italians, interned in concentration camps for almost three years.

Notable orders Arguably, the most famous and well known executive order was Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation** in 1862, which changed the legal status of all enslaved people in the Confederate states during the Civil War, and declared them free in the eyes of the Union. A number of other orders also marked notable milestones in African-American civil rights; including the desegregation of the U.S. military by President Truman in 1948, and the desegregation of public schools by President Eisenhower in 1957. While the number of orders issued by presidents has decreased since the Eisenhower administration, recent presidents have generally issued between 100 and 200 orders during each term. Examples of more controversial orders from recent years include George W. Bush's Order 13233, which tightened restrictions on the accessibility of former U.S. presidents' records, and Donald Trump's Order 13769, which placed travel bans on citizens from a number of Muslim-majority countries; Bush's Order was eventually revoked by Barack Obama the day after his inauguration, while Trump's travel ban was one of several executive orders repealed by Joe Biden on his first day in office.

As of May 19, there were *** anti-transgender bills actively under consideration in the United States in 2025, in addition to *** bills that were passed. Within the provided time period, the most anti-trans bills were passed in 2025, followed by ** bills that had passed in 2023. In recent years, there has been a significant increase in American anti-trans bills aiming to restrict access to gender-affirming healthcare, legal recognition, education, sports, and even use of public bathrooms by transgender people.

Overview

The publication of the data and story is EMBARGOED until 3:01 a.m. ET on Monday, April 4, 2022. It is intended for print publication on or after April 4. The data may be used for reporting immediately.

This dataset includes a combined set of congressional earmarks tied to the $1.5 trillion federal spending bill passed in March 2022.

The source documents were released by the relevant appropriations committees as PDF files. The AP has extracted the information and compiled a spreadsheet with all 4,975 listed projects. Each row lists the federal agency and program that administers the money. There’s also a description of the project — sometimes frustratingly vague — and its location, the amount approved and the House and Senate members who requested them.

The data can be searched and sorted to see who got what. Many projects were requested by multiple lawmakers, but there’s no double-counting — each project is listed only once. Some projects may have lawmakers from only one chamber doing the requesting, while others can have members from both the House and Senate. If a lawmaker’s name does not appear at all in the dataset, that means they didn’t receive projects.

The data accompanies a story published on April 4, 2022 that detailed the spending earmarked by members of Congress in the latest federal funding bill passed and signed by the President. The story found:

• "Home-district projects for members of Congress are back, sprinkled across the government-wide $1.5 trillion bill President Joe Biden signed recently. The official tally shows amounts modest by past standards yet spread widely around the country — and that understate what lawmakers are claiming credit for.
• The bipartisan measure, financing federal agencies this year, contains 4,975 such projects worth $9.7 billion, according to an Associated Press examination of items attributed to specific lawmakers in documents accompanying the bill. The listed projects, long called earmarks, ranged from $4,000 for evidence detection equipment for Huntington, West Virginia, to $350 million to help restore Florida’s vast but imperiled Everglades.

• The projects' reemergence after an 11-year hiatus, with transparency requirements and other curbs, marks a revival of expenditures that let lawmakers tout achievements to voters and help party leaders build support for legislation. While still vilified by some, especially conservatives, as emblems of influence peddling and wasteful spending, they've been embraced by lawmakers from both parties, who cite Congress’ constitutional power of the purse and say they know their local needs."

  Findings

• There were 4,975 earmarked projects worth a total of $9.7 billion included.

• Retiring Sen. Richard Shelby attained $126 million for two campuses of the University of Alabama, his alma mater, including for an endowment for its flagship Tuscaloosa campus to hire science and engineering faculty. There was also hundreds of millions to improve the city of Mobile's seaport and airport, part of a total $648 million he amassed for his state.

• Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., had 203 projects for New York, ranging from $27 million to upgrade Fort Drum's water systems to $44,000 for neighborhood improvements in the city of Geneva, the AP found. Facing what should be easy reelection this fall, Schumer totaled $314 million, including at least $23 million for hospitals, violence prevention and other programs in his home borough of Brooklyn.

• Of five senators facing tough reelection races this fall, three Democrats received at least $81 million each in projects: Sens. Mark Kelly of Arizona, Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada and Raphael Warnock of Georgia. Two others, Sens. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H., and Ron Johnson, R-Wis., requested and received none.

• While House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., wasn't listed as getting any projects, his top two lieutenants were. No. 2 leader Steve Scalise, R-La., got $31 million, including $5 million for Louisiana State University aerospace research. No. 3 GOP leader Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., won $35 million, including sharing credit with Schumer and Gillibrand for improving Fort Drum's $27 million water project.

  About This Data

  The original source of the data was 10 PDF files which can be found here: https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/AG CPF CDS FINAL FOR STATEMENT.pdf https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CJS_CDS_V6.pdf https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Defense_CDS.pdf https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/EW_CDSV5.pdf https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/FSGG Printed CDS Table.pdf https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/HOMELAND_CDS.pdf https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/INT_CDS_V3.PDF https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/LHHS_CDS_V3 (GPO Turn 3-5).pdf https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/MilCon_CDS.pdf https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/THUD_CDS_V5.pdf

Each file contained earmarks tied to a certain appropriations subject area or funding steam, such as agriculture, defense or transportation.

The AP extracted the information from these documents and then combined them into a single dataset. Several of the documents included additional columns that were not present in the majority of the appropriations tables, and yet others included columns with different names and/or that were filled in with slightly different information.

The AP reconciled and consolidated these disparate columns together to create a dataset including the most relevant pieces of information in a standardized way.

Please note the source documents identified requesting members of congress by their name alone, and that multiple House or Senate requestors were listed together in a single column. The AP did not change that method for this data release. This means you can filter by a member's name to see all of his or her earmarks, however you won't be able to create "top 10 members" or "top 10 states" rankings using the file alone as it is provided. (For the initial story accompanying this data release, the AP also relied on separate work by the nonprofit group Taxpayers for Common Sense who had conducted work to standardize and match up the member names to states and legislative votes. Reporters may contact them as well to obtain the TCS dataset if you should wish.)

​

Included Data

earmarks_combined - An Excel spreadsheet containing the earmarked projects

Additional Data Queries

Filter by project location

Filter by requestor in either chamber

Filter by Senate requestor

Filter by House requestor

Total dollars earmarked by appropriations category

Using This Data

Notes and suggestions for reporters on using this data for their own stories

Caveats

• Please note the source documents identified requesting members of congress by their name alone, and that multiple House or Senate requestors were listed together in a single column. The AP did not change that method for this data release. This means you can filter by a member's name to see all of his or her earmarks, however you won't be able to create "top 10 members" or "top 10 states" rankings using the file alone as it is provided. (For the initial story accompanying this data release, the AP also relied on separate work by the nonprofit group Taxpayers for Common Sense who had conducted work to standardize and match up the member names to states and legislative votes. Reporters may contact them as well to obtain the TCS dataset if you should wish.)
• Some earmarks may have resulted from a request by the Biden White House itself, though only a small number of the appropriations documents provided information on those instances. The AP’s standardized dataset includes only the ultimate total requested for the project, even if in some instances part or all of that earmark originated with the Biden administration. While this affects only a small number of records, some notable instances include the $350 million Everglades restoration project, requested by Rep. Brian Mast, R-Fla., and at least $99 million that Sen. Shelby procured was also proposed by the president.
• Location information can be a bit fluid in how it was documented by the appropriations committees. Sometimes a city,

Total Number of Bye Laws passed by NC/VC over the years 2016 to 2019 in Districts of KP

Despite the fact that most states enacted rape reform legislation by the mid-1980s, empirical research on the effect of these laws was conducted in only four states and for a limited time span following the reform. The purpose of this study was to provide both increased breadth and depth of information about the effect of the rape law changes and the legal issues that surround them. Statistical data on all rape cases between 1970 and 1985 in Atlanta, Chicago, Detroit, Houston, Philadelphia, and Washington, DC, were collected from court records. Monthly time-series analyses were used to assess the impact of the reforms on rape reporting, indictments, convictions, incarcerations, and sentences. The study also sought to determine if particular changes, or particular combinations of changes, affected the case processing and disposition of sexual assault cases and whether the effect of the reforms varied with the comprehensiveness of the changes. In each jurisdiction, data were collected on all forcible rape cases for which an indictment or information was filed. In addition to forcible rape, other felony sexual assaults that did not involve children were included. The names and definitions of these crimes varied from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. To compare the pattern of rape reports with general crime trends, reports of robbery and felony assaults during the same general time period were also obtained from the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) from the Federal Bureau of Investigation when available. For the adjudicated case data (Parts 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11), variables include month and year of offense, indictment, disposition, four most serious offenses charged, total number of charges indicted, four most serious conviction charges, total number of conviction charges, type of disposition, type of sentence, and maximum jail or prison sentence. The time series data (Parts 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12) provide year and month of indictment, total indictments for rape only and for all sex offenses, total convictions and incarcerations for all rape cases in the month, for those on the original rape charge, for all sex offenses in the month, and for those on the original sex offense charge, percents for each indictment, conviction, and incarceration category, the average maximum sentence for each incarceration category, and total police reports of forcible rape in the month. Interviews were also conducted in each site with judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys, and this information is presented in Part 13. These interviewees were asked to rate the importance of various types of evidence in sexual assault cases and to respond to a series of six hypothetical cases in which evidence of the victim's past sexual history was at issue. Respondents were also presented with a hypothetical case for which some factors were varied to create 12 different scenarios, and they were asked to make a set of judgments about each. Interview data also include respondent's title, sex, race, age, number of years in office, and whether the respondent was in office before and/or after the reform.

This public spreadsheet provides a section-by-section summary of climate and energy policy measures contained in major legislation introduced and/or enacted in the 117th United States Congress (sitting January 2021-January 2023)

In separate worksheets, the following pieces of legislation are summarized: 1. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021, H.R. 3684, as passed by Senate 8/10/21 (aka the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law) 2. The first full draft of the House Build Back Better Act of 2021, H.R. 5376, as referred to House Budget Committee, 9/25/21 3. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021, H.R. 3684, as passed by the House and sent to President Biden on 11/6/21 (aka the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law) 4. The House-passed Build Back Better Act of 2021, H.R. 5376, Managers Amendment to Rules Committee, 11/3/21 (R.C.P. 117-18), as passed by the House on 11/19/21 5. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, H.R. 5376, as introduced 7/27/22 and passed by the House and Senate in August 2022

The spreadsheets also contain documentation of how policies are modeled or considered in REPEAT Project's analysis of each federal legislation.

The sheets for each version of the Build Back Better Act and Inflation Reduction Act also attempts to track how each policy changed (or was removed) during the evolution of the FY2022 budget reconciliation bill (H.R. 5376).

Caveat emptor: all summaries are compiled by the authors and may contain errors; it is the responsibility of readers/users to verify the accuracy of summaries.

This most recently updated live version of this dataset can always be accessed via Google Sheets at http://bit.ly/REPEAT-Policies

"ForeignAssistance.gov is the U.S. government’s flagship website for making U.S. foreign assistance data available to the public. It serves as the central resource for budgetary and financial data produced by U.S. government agencies that manage foreign assistance portfolios. In keeping with the U.S. government’s commitment to transparency, ForeignAssistance.gov presents a picture of U.S. foreign assistance in accurate and understandable terms. The website also includes links to associated strategies and evaluations for U.S. foreign assistance programs. This site will be continually updated as data are available. Look for new features and enhancements as they come online.The primary objective of the site is to fulfill the requirements set forth in the Foreign Aid Transparency and Accountability Act of 2016 (FATAA) through the collection, tracking, and publication of the full lifecycle of all USG foreign assistance data."From Internet ArchiveMethodology:ForeignAssistance.gov captures both budgetary and financial information related to U.S. foreign assistance. These two types of data capture foreign assistance at different points in the financial lifecycle.Budgetary DataBudgetary data represents funds that are set aside to be spent by the U.S. government and its implementing partners in the future. Budgetary data is composed of request data – funds requested by U.S. government agencies – and appropriation data – funds appropriated by Congress to U.S. government agencies through spending bills signed into law. This data is reported on an annual basis for the fiscal year for which the funds were requested or appropriated.President's Budget Requests – The agencies prepare a funding request from Congress. The request data visualized on ForeignAssistance.gov comes from each agency's budget request. Each U.S. government agency prepares a budget request to Congress, which is compiled into the President's Budget submission to both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives. This submission provides a comprehensive outline of all programs and the associated funds the President proposes to execute in the upcoming fiscal year, and as such is not an authority to spend funds. This is also known as the Congressional Budget Justification (CBJ).Appropriations – Congress appropriates funds to U.S. government agencies in a series of appropriations acts or spending bills, which are then signed into law by the President. These laws provide funds to the agencies, which are subdivided into specific amounts to be spent on set categories or activities over a specified amount of time. In many instances, funds appropriated in a given fiscal year do not need to be obligated in that same fiscal year. The data visualized on ForeignAssistance.gov originally comes from the appropriation passed by Congress and is refreshed with final amounts for the agencies once this data is available.Financial DataFinancial data includes both obligated data – funds the U.S. government commits to an acquisition or award mechanism – and disbursed data – funds the U.S. government moves to implementing partners for the purchase of goods and services. U.S. government agencies report financial transaction data from their accounting and project management systems on a quarterly basis, if possible. The fiscal years associated with obligated and disbursed transaction data represent the years in which those transactions took place. Transaction data is more granular than activity data. Transaction data represent individual financial records in an agency's accounting system of record for program work with implementing partners and administrative expenses.What is Foreign Aid?Foreign assistance is provided by the United States to other countries to support global peace, security, and development efforts, as well as to provide humanitarian relief during times of crisis. The U.S. government provides foreign assistance because it is strategically, economically, and morally imperative for the United States and vital to U.S. national security.For purposes of this website, foreign assistance includes activities funded from appropriations accounts that are made available for assistance for foreign countries, international organizations, and other foreign entities, which may include, but is not limited to, funds, goods, services, and technical ass

Total number of bye-laws passed by DC in districts

In 1801, the Virginia Legislature passed an act requiring commissioners of the revenue to annually return a complete list of all free Black Virginians within their districts, with their names, sex, place of abode, and trades. This collection includes those lists as well as “Free Negro Tax Lists”; and “Free Negro Delinquent Tax Lists.”

For many years in Virginia, each adult male was required to pay a flat tax ranging somewhere between 30 to 65 cents to fund county government operation. However, in the 1810s, Virginia imposed a “specific tax” exclusively on free Black individuals. The tax rate varied throughout the years leading up to the Civil War, but for the most part hovered around $1. Many Black individuals already struggled to pay the county levy, and Virginia legislators intended that an additional tax would further restrict autonomy. Several laws passed in 1782, 1814, and 1820 allowed sheriffs to hire out Black tax delinquents (those who did not pay their levy). Delinquent tax lists include names of free Black individuals returned delinquent and sometimes why they were returned, such as "no property," "removed," or "not found.” In addition to representing blatant taxation without representation, these hiring-out scenarios were largely exploitative.

Tax collection and hiring out tax delinquents was not strictly enforced and varied from each locality. For a time in the late 1830s and early 1840s, taxes were not even collected. By the 1850s, however, Virginia found a way to use the money collected from free Black residents to fund their removal from the state. In 1853, the General Assembly passed a law allowing the taxes raised on free Black men and women to be collected in a fund to be applied to the removal of these individuals as a part of the recolonization effort. See Colonization Records for more.

Descriptions included in this dataset are drawn directly from the original documents and may contain language which is now deemed offensive.

Legislative scholars have debated what factors (e.g. divided government) account for the number of important laws a legislative body passes per year. This paper presents a monopoly model for explaining legislative production. It assumes that a legislature adjusts its law production so as to maximize its utility. The model predicts that socioeconomic and political changes increase the marginal benefit of lawproduction,whereas low negotiation costs and ample legislative resources decrease the marginal cost of law production. The model is tested in two ways. The first approach compares the legislatures of 42 developed and developing countries. The second analyzes Japanese lawmaking from 1949 to 1990, using an appropriate method for event count time series data. Both empirical investigations support the model’s predictions for legislative production.

Museum specimens offer a unique and powerful tool for understanding the impact of anthropogenic change on populations over time. Morphological traits can be impacted by many different environmental variables that are difficult to separate from one another as potential driving factors. Comparative analyses among similar species jointly experiencing change in the same environmental variables can help pinpoint the selective pressures driving temporal morphological change. We assessed temporal change in bill size, tarsus length, and body size between six species of songbirds from the San Francisco Bay Area over the past 150 years. Wing length, as a proxy for body size, exhibited idiosyncratic temporal changes among species. In contrast, we found a significant increase in bill surface area across all but one species. Quantile regression analyses on bill size variation additionally revealed that temporal increases over the past century have been driven by increases in the largest bill sizes i..., The dataset includes morphological measurements made from 1,001 museum specimens at Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California Berkeley and California Academy of Sciences. Measurements were all made using digital calipers. Climate variables for each specimen come from the PRISM climate database and were extracted using locality info from each specimen. , , # Data from: Shared temporal increases in bill size among songbirds of the San Francisco bay area are due to different seasonal selective pressures

https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.98sf7m0v5

Description of the data and file structure

Dataset of morphological measurements from 1,001 bird specimens of six species. Morphological characters include: bill length, bill width, bill depth, wing length and tarsus length. Dataset also includes specimen voucher numbers, locality coordinates, and time of collection. Finally, the data includes climate data extracted from PRISM dataset for year and location of specimen collected. Climate variables include: annual maximum temperature, annual minimum temperature, annual maximum vapor pressure deficit, annual minimum vapor pressure deficit. We also calculated 3 and 5-year averages of each climate parameter before year of collection for each specimen. Cells in the dataset with NA represent cases where data is...,

Report conveys data and information required by OMB in support of the President's management agenda as it pertains to Made in America laws.

In 2021, the federal funding for public transit in the U.S. amounted to almost **** billion U.S. dollars. This represented the highest annual funding from 2016 to 2021 under the FAST Act bill, passed by Congress in the Obama administration and included **** billion U.S. dollars in COVID-19 relief funding. In November 2021, the new Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill was passed with a five-year total authorized budget for public transit of more than *** billion U.S. dollars. Under this new law, the approved funding for U.S. public transportation reached **** billion U.S. dollars in 2022.

This data is for the 2021 Bush School Legislative Capstone. We gather data from the 349 committees that passed at least 10 bills in both the Texas House and Senate from the eight regular legislative sessions since 2007. The data used in this analysis is obtained from Texas Legislature Online (TLO). To find the total number of bills referred to a committee for each session, we use the ‘Bills By…Reports’ tool on the TLO website (2021). To find the total number of bills passed by each chamber that came out of each session’s committees, we utilize the TLO ‘Bill Search’ tool (2021) and select the appropriate action criteria: Passed (H555) and Passed (S576).