INFORMAL CONGRESSIONAL GROUPS AND MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS: SELECTED QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES
CRS Report for Congress
Informal Congressional Groups
and Members Organizations:
Selected Questions and Responses
Updated March 7, 2001
Sula P. Richardson
Analyst in American National Government
Government and Finance Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
Informal Congressional Groups and Members
Organizations: Selected Questions and Responses
Summary
Informal congressional groups and organizations of Members with shared
interests in specific issues or philosophies have been part of the American
policymaking process since colonial times. Only recently, however, have they
emerged in such large numbers and in such diverse ways as to stimulate questions
about their purposes, organization, operations, funding, status, and relationship with
organizations and interests outside of Congress. Such questions about informal
Member groups are addressed in this report, based on examination of the more than
Historically, most unofficial Member organizations have been informal networks
of Members and staff with no separate personnel, office space, or funding. These
groups have operated without any specific, externally imposed rules or any direct
congressional oversight. However, the House and bicameral Member groups that
were recognized as legislative service organizations (LSOs) from 1979 through 1994,
were governed by committee orders promulgated by the Committee on House
Administration. Legislative service organizations tended to have a more
institutionalized character. Typically, LSOs employed separate staff, occupied space
in House office buildings, prepared and distributed legislative analyses and other
reports on a regular basis, and, for financial and other operational support, relied on
participating Members’ use of their official resources within the House. The Senate
Committee on Rules and Administration has never adopted any comparable
regulations which provide for Senators using their allowances to support informal
groups in that body.
A provision prohibiting the establishment or continuation of any legislative
service organization (“as defined and authorized in the One Hundred Third
Congress”) was passed in the House on January 4, 1995, as part of a House Rulesth
package for the 104 Congress. As a result, the groups formerly designated as LSOs
lost that status and the special administrative arrangements that were accorded them
(e.g., financial support, separate House office space and staff, etc.). However, former
LSOs were allowed to convert their operations into informal networks of Members
with no separate personnel, office space, or funding. If they chose to become
congressional Member organizations (CMOs), they were required to register as such
with what is now the Committee on House Administration. Under regulations
adopted by the Committee on House Administration, an informal group whose
members want to formally share official resources (e.g., staff) in pursuit of the group’s
legislative objectives must register as a CMO with the House Administration
Committee.
Contents
Introduction ................................................ 1
1. What are the differences among informal groups, congressional
Member organizations, and legislative service organizations? .....2
2. What functions do informal groups and Member organizations perform?5
Informational ........................................... 5
Legislative ............................................. 5
Casework and Communications with Constituents...............6
3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of forming an
informal congressional group or Member organization ?..........6
Advantages ............................................ 6
Disadvantages .......................................... 6
4. What are the rules governing informal groups and congressional
Member organizations?..................................7
House ................................................ 7
Senate ................................................ 8
Internal Rules...........................................8
5. What is the procedure for setting up an informal group or a CMO?....8
6. How are informal groups and CMOs structured?.................11
Officers .............................................. 11
Executive Committee/Steering Committee/Advisory Board.......12
Task Forces...........................................12
7. How are the chairman and other officers selected?...............12
Senate ............................................... 12
House ............................................... 13
Bicameral ............................................. 13
8. How are informal groups and CMOs staffed?...................14
9. Do informal groups have the franking privilege? Can a Member lend
his or her frank to an informal group or CMO?................14
10. Can official funds be used to pay for letterhead for a CMO?.......15
11. Can CMOs have their own Web site, separate and apart from any of
their Members?.......................................15
12. What is the nature of the relationships informal groups and
Member organizations have with outside organizations?..........15
Informal Congressional Groups
and Members Organizations:
Selected Questions and Responses
Introduction
In 1970, there were probably fewer than a dozen informal congressional groups
and Member organizations. Only four of them were organized on a basis similar to
current practice.1 In 1999, at least 185 such groups (also referred to as congressional
caucuses and ad hoc coalitions) existed.2
A number of questions arise when considering the possible establishment of an
informal congressional group and the factors and options relevant to its operation.
This report addresses 12 aspects of informal group formation and operation, including
ones pertinent to groups registered with the Committee on House Administration as
congressional Member organizations (CMOs) and groups formerly designated as
legislative service organizations (LSOs).
The information provided is in no way intended to substitute for directives,
findings, or any other information available from the congressional committees with
primary jurisdiction over the groups. Accordingly, questions regarding the
operations, organization, and propriety of these groups should be directed to the
following committees: House Committee on House Administration; House Committee
on Standards of Official Conduct; Senate Committee on Rules and Administration;
and Senate Committee on Ethics.
Political science literature sometimes refers to informal congressional groups and
Member organizations as congressional caucuses. That term previously was used
collectively to refer to all unofficial Member groups in Congress, including groups
1The four groups were: the Democratic Study Group (organized in 1959); the House
Wednesday Group (organized in 1965); Members of Congress for Peace Through Law
(organized in 1966 and renamed the Arms Control and Foreign Policy Caucus in 1983); and
the Conference of Great Lakes Congressmen (organized in 1970). In addition, there were a
few state delegations which met to share information and to mobilize support for choice
committee assignments. There were also a few social clubs (e.g., the Acorns and the Chowder
and Marching Society), which by virtue of their purely social nature, are not part of this
analysis.
2CRS Report RL30288, Informal Congressional Groups and Member Organizations, 106th
Congress: An Informational Directory, by Sula P. Richardson.
formerly designated as legislative service organizations.3 In order to emphasize the
distinction between official party caucuses and unofficial groups and to avoid
confusion given shifting meanings of “caucus,” the term “congressional caucus” is not
used beyond this point in this report.
congressional Member organizations, and legislative service
organizations?
Informal groups have been defined as “voluntary associations of Members of
Congress, without [direct] recognition in chamber or party rules or line item
appropriations which seek to have a role in the policy process”.4 This definition
distinguishes these unofficial groups from the official party caucuses of Members
(called caucus by House Democrats and conference by Senate Democrats and by5
Republicans in both Houses) and from Member groups of a purely social nature (e.g.,
the Acorns and the Chowder and Marching Society). The unofficial status and
3Prior to the 104th Congress (1995-1997), the terms congressional Member organizations,
informal groups, and congressional caucuses were used almost interchangeably. Initially,
the term informal groups was the most commonly used. However, by the early 1980s, the
institutionalized nature of some of the groups and the regulation of those recognized as
legislative service organizations (LSOs) by the House Administration Committee apparently
led some political observers to prefer the term congressional caucuses. By the late 1980s,
the term congressional Member organizations (CMOs) was being used more frequently. It
helped to distinguish unofficial groups from official party caucuses of Members (also called
caucus by House Democrats and conference by Senate Democrats and by Republicans in both
Houses), as well as from the alliances of citizens (only) and citizens and Members that may
also be called caucuses. Thus, prior to 1995, the term CMO referred to all unofficial Member
groups, including those designated as legislative service organizations. Indeed, some political
observers used an even broader definition of the term CMO, such that it included the official
party groups as well. (See for example: Congressional Information Service’s Congressional
Member Organizations & Caucuses, 1993: Publications and Policy Materials, p. 3).
However, pursuant to rules promulgated by the Committee on House Oversight (now named
Committee on House Administration) on February 8, 1995, the term congressional Member
organization, as expressly defined, referred solely to groups registered with the Committee.
Regulations which became effective August 1, 1999, supersede all previous CMO regulations.
According to staff at the Committee on House Administration, the concept of recognizing
CMOs as informal groups, which are registered with the Committee, remains. Consequently,
for the purposes of this report, the term CMO is used solely to refer to those groups. Groups
not registered as CMOs are referred to as informal groups; and the terms Member
organizations, Member groups, or Member alliances may refer to CMOs and informal
groups separately or combined, depending upon context.
4Arthur Stevens, Susan Hammond, and Daniel P. Mulhollan, Changes in Decision-Making
Networks in the Congressional System: An Examination of the Role of Informal Groups.
(A paper prepared for delivery at the Annual Meeting of the Western Political Science
Association, Denver Colorado, March 26-28, 1981). p. 3.
5The official party caucuses—the Senate Republican Conference, the Senate Democratic
Conference, the House Republican Conference, and the House Democratic Caucus—have
direct recognition in chamber and party rules and are funded directly from congressional
appropriations.
informal nature of some groups make it virtually impossible to always know their
exact number, but at least 195 were operating in February 2001.6 No specific limit
has ever been set on the number of these groups that may exist.
The term congressional Member organization (CMO) refers to a group of
Members who join together in pursuit of common legislative objectives, who register
with the Committee on House Administration, and who formally share official
resources (in particular, sharing staff or coordinating their expenses), to jointly carry
out activities. Any group that wishes to formally share official resources must register
with the House Administration Committee as a CMO. Groups that view CMO status
as an enhancement of their legitimacy or as beneficial in other ways (e.g., openness
or publicity), may also register as CMOs, even though no formal sharing of official
resources occurs or is envisioned by group members.
In regulations adopted by the Committee on House Administration on June 22,
!has no separate corporate or legal identity;
!is not an employing authority;
!may not be assigned separate office space;
!may not use the frank;
!may not have independent web pages; and
!may not accept goods, funds or services from private organizations or7
individuals to support the CMO.
Further, the regulations require that, upon registration, at the beginning of each
Congress, and as changes in information warrant, each CMO provide to the House
Administration Committee:
!the CMO’s name;
!statement of purpose;
!names and titles of officers; and
! the name(s) of staff designated to work on the CMO’s issues.
Thus, like the groups formerly recognized as LSOs, CMOs are governed by
regulations developed expressly for them, and they must register with the House
Administration Committee. However, Members may not contribute funds from their
6The total of 195 groups was calculated by the author using Leadership Directories, Inc.,
Congressional Yellow Book, winter 2001, pp. 827-830 and a listing of Congressional
Member Organizations obtained via the Internet from the House Administration Committee,
February 20, 2001
[http:\www.house.gov/cha/organizzations/CMOs/107thCMO/body_ 107thcmo.html], visited
Mar. 7, 2001.
7“Congressional Member Organizations,” in Members’ Congressional Handbook— 1999, p.
official allowances (as they could to LSOs) to support CMO activities. Members are
free to use their own personal funds to support CMO activities.8
The term legislative service organization (LSO)9 refers to a now defunct set of
unofficial Member organizations which, from 1979 through 1994, were recognized
and regulated by the Committee on House Administration. The Committee
recognized as LSOs those House and bicameral groups that met and maintained the
organizational, financial, and operational requirements prescribed by the Committee
in regulations it adopted in 1979, 1981, and 1993. The Senate Committee on Rules
and Administration has never accorded any comparable recognition or administrative
arrangement to Senate groups.
In 1994, 28 of the 140 Member organizations confirmed as operational were
certified as LSOs. Although the Committee on House Administration never placed
a specific limit on the number of LSOs that could exist, the Committee could (and
sometimes did) decline to accept or approve the applications of groups seeking
recognition as LSOs. Typically, LSOs had the advantages of employing staff or
having clerk-hire staff assigned to them from Members’ administrative funds;
occupying space in House office buildings; preparing and distributing legislative
analyses and other reports on a regular basis; and, for financial and other support,
relying on Members’ payment of funds from their official allowances (dues or
expenses paid from House resources) to sustain their operations.
On January 4, 1995, the House agreed to a provision which prohibited “the
establishment or continuation of any legislative service organization as defined and
authorized in the One Hundred Third Congress.”10 The House directed what is now
the Committee on House Administration to “take such steps as are necessary to
ensure an orderly termination and accounting for funds of any legislative service
organization in existence on January 3, 1995.”11 Former LSOs, however, were
allowed to convert their operations into informal groups with no separate staff, office
space, or official funding. They could also choose to become CMOs by registering
with what is now the House Administration Committee, and meeting and maintaining
the requirements for CMOs set out in the Committee’s regulations governing CMOs.
Since then, LSO status has not existed, and the special administrative arrangements
accorded groups recognized as LSOs are no longer available on that basis.
8“Funding and Resources,” CMO Regulations, 1999.
9For a more detailed explanation of the definition, history, and regulation of LSOs, see: U.S.
Congress, House Committee on House Administration, Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Legislativethnd
Service Organizations, Legislative Service Organizations, report, 97 Cong., 2 sess.,
(Washington: GPO, 1982). pp. 1-25.
10Rules of the House (H.Res. 6), “Abolition of Legislative Service
Organizations,”Congressional Record, vol. 141, Jan. 4, 1995. p. 469.
11 Ibid .
2. What functions do informal groups and Member
organizations perform?
An informal group or congressional Member organization may perform a variety
of functions in the policymaking process. These functions may be categorized as: (1)
informational (acquiring, compiling, coordinating, and distributing information); (2)
legislative (seeking congressional approval or promoting legislative proposals,
oversight, or appropriation of funds); and (3) casework and communications with
constituents (where the Member acts on behalf of a constituency and seeks to
promote its interests). These functions may overlap, and a group may be oriented
toward any one or some combination of them. The degree to which a group performs
any of these functions also varies.
Informational. A common purpose of informal groups and Member
organizations is to collect and disseminate information, both substantive and political.
Some groups (e.g., the former Environmental and Energy Study Conference) have
emphasized this role more than others. Some groups (e.g., the House Renewable
Energy and Efficiency Caucus and the House Trails Caucus) have characterized
themselves as informational and preclude themselves from taking positions on
legislation. Others perform both legislative and information functions. For example,
the Congressional Caucus on Women’s Issues and theCongressional Automotive
Caucus serve as resource centers and advocacy groups for legislation.
Legislative. Several groups focus their activities on legislative proposals,
committee oversight, and appropriation of funds. They may concentrate on devising
legislative proposals, monitor and evaluate Federal programs and agencies related to
specific issues of their choosing, prepare reports and disseminate information on
issues of interest to them, or conduct any combination of these functions.
A number of groups also monitor executive branch operations. Some seek to
influence the Administration and government agencies to implement specific policy
solutions. (For example, in 1981 the Senate Steel Caucus recommended that the
Commerce Department initiate trade complaints against European steel producers
instead of waiting for the domestic industry to do so. The Commerce Department
adopted the Caucus’ recommendation, and on November 5, 1981, made the historic12
announcement that it would initiate such complaints.) Similarly, other groups (e.g.,
the Congressional Soybean Caucus, the House Beef Caucus, and the Senate Jewelry
Task Force) monitor the activities of government agencies and coordinate their efforts
with those agencies to protect domestic markets against foreign imports and unfair
trade practices, or to achieve other policy goals.
In 1990, the Congressional Caucus on Women’s Issues was credited with having
influenced the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to implement two important
changes: (1) creation of a federal Office for Research on Women’s Health; and (2)
12Senator Jennings Randolph, “Senate Steel Caucus Productive Group,” remarks in the
Senate, Congressional Record, vol. 128, Oct. 1, 1982. p. 27134.
CRS-6
revision of NIH’s research guidelines to ensure that future studies would devote13
more funds and effort to diseases that women contract.
Casework and Communications with Constituents. Some groups (e.g.,
the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the
Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus, and the Federal Government Service Caucus)
provide representation for specific elements in national as well as Members’
constituencies. Several groups prepare information and speech material which
Members have found useful. Others assist Members in developing and conducting
special events, seminars, and conferences on issues. Sometimes these events are held
in the Members’ home districts, and may enhance Member-constituent relations by
increasing Members’ visibility and identification with particular issues.
3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of forming an
informal congressional group or Member organization ?
Advantages. Informal Member alliances (including CMOs) may be seen as
advantageous because they can:
!be readily established as circumstances and issues warrant without enacting
legislation or changing House, Senate, or party rules;
!expand Members’ opportunities to specialize on issues because neither the
number of groups that can exist nor the number of group memberships that
a Member can have are limited;
!open or limit membership as they deem necessary to accomplish their goals;
!serve as a vehicle for the resolution of issue and policy differences between
committees, parties, or the two Houses;
!provide an opportunity for a comprehensive and coordinated approach to
issues over which committee jurisdiction is unclear or fragmented;
!serve as readily identifiable entities and provide a means of access to
Congress for outside groups and individuals;
!conduct briefings and use other means of information gathering to supply
information to Congress and interested segments of the public; and
!enhance Members’ relations and standing with particular constituencies.
Disadvantages. Some disadvantages ascribed to informal congressional
groups and Member organizations arise from the perception that they:
!compete with the formal leadership and committee structure and functions;
!undermine or even impede the legislative process by further fragmenting
decisionmaking;
!have become so numerous that their significance has been diminished (i.e.,
every cause or issue has a group); and
13Kent Jenkins, Jr., “Caucus Proposes Women’s Medical Office,” Washington Post, July 27,
1990, p. C3. See also: Rochelle Jones, “Where’s the Arts Caucus?” Museum and Arts
Washington, vol. 6, Nov.-Dec., 1990, pp. 72-73, 126-127.
CRS-7
!may facilitate certain special interests in attaining undue attention in the
legislative process.
In addition, the proliferation of groups may:
!raise questions of fair and equal representation of interests not represented
by a group;
!create the perception of conflict of interest for Members who may have
formal legislative responsibilities within the same subject areas of the
groups) i.e., appearing to be an advocate and adjudicator of an issue at the
same time); and
!have a negative impact on public opinion of Congress by causing it to be
viewed as overly influenced by special interests.
4. What are the rules governing informal groups and
congressional Member organizations?
House. In the House, members of CMOs and other informal groups must
conduct their activities in accordance with other provisions in law, the House Ethics
Manual, the Congressional Handbook, and the Rules of the House (including House
Rule 43—the House Code of Official Conduct). In general, the assumption has been
that unless otherwise specified, the same regulations applicable to House Members
as individuals also apply to their informal groups. Members are advised to contact the
Committee on House Administration, the Franking Commission, and the Office of
Advice and Education of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for
information and guidance.
All groups registered with the Committee on House Administration as
congressional Member organizations (CMOs) are governed under regulations the
Committee adopted on June 22, 1999. (Under House Rules, the Committee has
authority to promulgate such regulations without approval by the full House.) The
regulations, which became effective August 1, 1999, provide that CMOs have no
separate corporate or legal identity. They may not have their own separate offices,
employ staff, or accept goods, funds, or services from outside groups or individuals
to support their operations. Furthermore, Members may not: (1) make contributions
to CMOs from their official expenses allowances (i.e., Members’ representational
allowances); or (2) lend their frank to any CMO.14 A CMO member, however, is
permitted to use staff and other resources under his or her control to assist the CMO
with carrying out its legislative goals and objectives. Two or more Members may
each employ a shared staffer to perform research and other duties in support of a
CMO (i.e., shared staff).
All groups using a shared staffing arrangement are required to register as CMOs
with the Committee on House Administration. Registration is optional for groups that
do not have shared staff, but some groups may choose to register because they see it
14For further discussion on informal groups and the franking privilege, see question 9, p. 14
CRS-8
as an enhancement of the group’s stature, or perhaps, as an indication of the group’s
openness. Each CMO is required to provide the following information to the
Committee at the time of registration and as changes in information warrant: its name;
statement of purpose; names and titles of officers; and the name(s) of staff designated
to work on the CMO’s issues.15 A CMO’s activities must be conducted in accordance
with the regulations of the Committee on House Administration.
Senate. Historically, the Senate groups have been informal networks of
Members and staff contacts, drawing upon resources available to Senators for
materials and services, without any additional funding or staff. Because of their
traditional, non-official status and informal nature, specific regulation of such groups
has not been deemed necessary. The assumption has been that these informal groups
of Members are collectively subject to the same regulations applicable to Senators as
individuals (spelled out in the Senate Ethics Manual, the Congressional Handbook,
Rules of the Senate, and the Senate Code of Official Conduct). Separate regulations
expressly recognizing them and prescribing their operations have never been
implemented in the Senate.
Internal Rules. A number of groups have formulated certain decisions,
practices, and procedures into bylaws or rules which prescribe their structure and
operations, but these rules have no force outside the group.
Typically, a group’s rules specify any combination of the following elements: the
purpose(s) of the group; whether or not the group will advocate specific positions on
issues; eligibility criteria for membership; structure of the group (e.g., officers,
executive committee, task forces); manner of selecting officers; responsibilities of
officers; manner of scheduling meetings; voting requirements (e.g., situations in which
the entire membership, the executive committee, or certain members vote, as well as
the vote percentage required); and the process for amending the bylaws.
5. What is the procedure for setting up an informal group or
a CMO?
There is no standardized procedure for establishing an informal group or a
congressional Member organization (CMO). However, a few basic steps are often
involved when such a group is being established.
Define the Objective. First, clearly state the group’s objective(s). What is its
purpose?
Determine the level of interest. The founding Member(s) determines whether
there is sufficient interest to warrant organizing the group. A number of methods may
be used in making this determination. These include: informal discussions with
colleagues; communications with constituents (individuals and organizations); and the
Member’s personal judgement and interest.
15“Registration,” CMO Regulations, 1999.
CRS-9
The extent to which an issue or interest is fragmented within the committee
system may also be a factor. In an effort to bring the various aspects of an issue
under one entity, a number of groups have been organized around issues which were
widely dispersed among several committees and subcommittees.
Consult prospective “core” members. Sometimes, the organizing Member(s)
selects a few colleagues with an interest in the issue, consults with them about the
group, and enlists their support in organizing it. In many instances, these Members
serve as the group’s executive officers, coordinators, or sponsors, and are the activists
who lay the group’s foundation and shape its policy. (This informal gathering of
“core” members may occur before the group is actually established or shortly
thereafter.)
Consider internal political concerns. In an effort to avoid the appearance of
rivalry or duplication with party or committee positions and policy, group organizers
may wish to consult with party and committee leadership, or inform them of the intent
to form the organization. Similar consideration may also be given to any existing
groups which handle relevant aspects of the issue(s) or policy. Organizers will likely
want to give careful consideration to the group’s name in order to avoid confusion
with other existing entities (whether formal or informal).
Identify likely membership. Informal group membership is voluntary. Eligibility
criteria for membership are determined by the group itself. Membership may be open
to anyone who is willing to join, or it may be limited to invitees only. Membership
may be open to:
!one party only or both parties;
!one House only or both Houses;
!regions which share specific economic concerns;
!districts or States which share a common industry;
!Members who share personal characteristics;
!Members whose constituents share personal or occupational characteristics;
or
!Members who share issue interests.
Membership may also be based upon committee and subcommittee assignments.
For example, the Port Caucus, which existed from 1977 through 1988, consisted
primarily of members of two House committees—the Merchant Marine and Public
Works Committees.16 Similarly, the membership lists of the committees and
subcommittees with primary jurisdiction over the relevant issue(s) can be used to
identify prospective group members. This procedure can provide an indication of
whether, how, and by whom the issue is handled. It may also identify some Members
who would either support or oppose the group.
16Under current House Rules, the jurisdiction of these two now defunct committees rests
primarily with the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. (Military aspects of
merchant marine and fisheries issues are currently under the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Armed Services.)
CRS-10
Seek necessary information and guidance. The Committee on House
Administration has issued specific regulations governing groups that register as
CMOs. The regulations appear in the Members’ Congressional Handbook—1999 on
pages 45 and 46. House Members will undoubtedly want to thoroughly review these
regulations. (Additional copies may be obtained from the House Administration
Committee or from the Congressional Research Service.) Furthermore, House
Members may wish to contact the Committee on House Administration, the House
Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards (also known as the Franking
Commission), the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct Office of Advice and
Education, and any other authorities, as appropriate, for guidance.
Senators may seek guidance from the Committee on Rules and Administration
and the Senate Ethics Committee, which have primary jurisdiction over Senate
informal groups. To date, no specific regulations governing the operations of
unofficial Senate Member organizations have been promulgated by the Rules and
Administration Committee. The Committee has never officially recognized informal
groups, conferred any special designation upon them, or allowed them any special
administrative arrangements.
Notify or announce the group’s formation. There are instances where formation
of an informal group has been announced on the House and Senate floor, in the
Congressional Record, by the media (through press releases, news articles,
newsletters, television interviews, etc.), and internally, through circulation of “Dear
Colleague” letters to Members. The “Dear Colleague” letter and announcement
usually invite Members to join the group and explain its goals, anticipated activities,
and reason(s) for being formed. Sometimes, notification of a group’s formation also
includes language aimed at assuring that the group is not being established to supplant
the structure or operations of any committee or party organizations. For example,
in 1988, when announcing the formation of an air and space group, a Senator stated
that:
This organization cannot substitute for the Senate’s formal committee process, nor
is it meant to. Instead, it will facilitate the interaction of Senators and their staffs,
aerospace contractors, and aviation and space-oriented public interest groups in
an effort to become more informed and focused in regard to these very important17
issues.
Register with the Committee on House Administration (Where Appropriate).
Under 1999 CMO Regulations, House groups whose members wish to formally share
official resources (e.g., staff) must register with the Committee on House
Administration. The registration process involves providing the following information
to the Committee at the time of registration at the beginning of each Congress, and
as changes in information warrant: (1) the name of the group (i.e. CMO); (2) a
statement of the purpose of the CMO; (3) the officers the CMO; and (4) the name(s)
of designated staff who will work on CMO issues.
17Senator Richard Shelby, “ Senate Air and Space Caucus,” remarks in the Senate,
Congressional Record, vol. 134, Feb. 4, 1988, p. 1080.
CRS-11
Each informal group (whether a CMO or not) determines its own structure. A
few groups are so informally organized that they have no particular leaders.
However, most groups have at least one identifiable leader who is designated (either
formally or informally) as the group’s Chairman, Coordinator, Sponsor, or President.
Beyond that, many organizations (including most of those in the Senate) have little
or no formal structure. Often, the founding Member or Members serve as the group’s
officers or coordinators, without formal election or designation. Leadership
responsibilities (e.g., coordinating the group’s activities, scheduling meetings,
distributing information on group issues and actions, etc.) are undertaken by Members
who volunteer, and group business usually is handled by staff in an individual
Member’s office as part of their regular office duties.
Several groups have a structure which includes any combination of the following
elements: officers (e.g., chairman, co-chairman, vice chairmen, secretary); an
executive committee (alternatively called an executive board, steering committee, or
advisory panel); and subunits (usually called task forces or working groups).
Officers. The chairman or coordinator usually is a Member who is highly
interested in the issue(s) around which the group is organized. More often than not,
he or she “steps forth” to serve in that role or agrees to accept the position when
recruited. Usually, he or she also designates staff to serve as (the) key contact
person(s) for the group and to provide assistance on group business.
Most of the bipartisan or bicameral groups have had more than one coordinator
or chairman (i.e., co-chairmen) to emphasize the bipartisan and (or) bicameral aspect
of their structure. For example, a group might have two coordinators, one from each
party. Or, the group might have a chairman, who may be a member of either party
in either House, as well as a Senate co-chairman and a House co-chairman, while
prescribing that all three officers cannot be members of the same party.
Several groups have a chairman, vice chairman, and secretary. A few
organizations have opted for an even more stratified structure, one which might
include whips and an executive committee.
Class groups (i.e., freshmen in a particular Congress) who organize as a socio-
political force in each House, usually have a structure that includes a president, vice
president, and secretary.
Most of the bicameral groups are also bipartisan, and their structure usually
reflects these characteristics. Thus, many bicameral organizations require that the
group’s leadership be comprised of Members from both parties and both Houses.
Current CMO regulations provide that “Members of both the House and Senate may
CRS-12
participate in [a] CMO, but at least one of the officers of the CMO must be a Member18
of House.”
Executive Committee/Steering Committee/Advisory Board. For most
groups, the officers and/or executive committee administer the group’s activities and
set its agenda. Often, the executive committee also serves as the group’s source of
expertise, and it advises the group on certain issues. An executive committee serving
in this advisory capacity sometimes comprises Members who serve on the committees
and subcommittees with primary jurisdiction over the issue(s) of concern to the group.
Other bases for advisory or executive committee membership might be the Member’s
State or region, common characteristic(s) of Members’ constituents or congressional
districts, or shared characteristics among the Members themselves, including their
“class” group, knowledge, or interest. Some groups have separated the administrative
and advisory roles of the executive committee by creating an advisory committee,
apart from the executive committee.
Task Forces. Sometimes informal groups and Member organizations have
established their own task forces or subdivision structures. It is through these
subunits that the groups have accomplished division of labor and specialization on
issues.
Like other internal operational matters, the manner by which the chairman (or
chairmen) of a group is selected is left to the discretion of each group. A group may
use an informal method of selection, whereby members volunteer to serve as
chairman. If more than one member expresses such interest, a co-chairmanship
arrangement may be used. Or, the interested Members themselves may work out an
agreement as to who will serve, perhaps so that some Members serve during the First
Session and others during the Second Session. Alternatively, a group may choose a
more formal process whereby interested Members must be nominated and then stand
for election by the total membership or the executive committee.
Invariably, the initial chairman of a group—whether House, Senate, or
bicameral—is its founder. Often, he or she continues to serve until no longer a
Member of Congress or until he or she relinquishes the position. However, in some
instances, tenure as chairman of a group is limited, either by custom or by rule (in the
group’s bylaws).
Senate. In the Senate, the incidence of rotation and turnover among chairmen
of these groups has tended to be relatively low. In a few instances, there is no
designated chair for the group; leadership responsibilities rotate and are conducted
through the office of a Member who agrees to coordinate the group’s business.
18“Membership,” CMO Regulations, 1999.
CRS-13
Usually, when a Senate group has selected a new chairman, the basis for
selection has been the Member’s interest in the group and willingness to assume the
position. In most instances, formal elections have not been held. Sometimes, when
more than one Member has been interested in serving, a structure was created to
accommodate co-chairmen, or scheduled changes in chairmanship were worked out
among the interested Members. Still another method used by one group was to send
a letter to the group’s membership asking if there were any objection to the
appointment of a volunteering Member as chair. When there was none, the
announcement of the new chair was made. Also, the outgoing chairman may
personally select a replacement, recruiting another Member who agrees to assume the
position, more or less by consensus.
House. Formal and informal processes for determining group officers have
been used by House groups. In some instances, elections have been held after
candidates for the various positions announced they were standing for election; a
formal election meeting at the beginning of each Congress was held; and members
voted by secret ballot for their group leaders (i.e., officers and executive committee
members).
Under a less formal system used by some groups, members volunteer to serve
as officers and executive committee members, or express their desire to serve to a
former chairman, executive members, etc. Insofar as the executive committee is
concerned, if more than one Member from the same State or region desired to serve,
they usually worked out an agreement as to who would stand for election.
Sometimes, if no Member from a particular State or region expressed interest,
recruitment was made by the chairman or outgoing executive Member from that
State. These members then usually announced that they were candidates and
subsequently were elected. Rarely were their elections contested.
More often than not, House groups choose some variation of the less formal
means of selecting officers.
Bicameral. One bicameral group used a more formalized procedure for
selecting its chairman. The chairman appointed an equal number of Democrats and
Republicans (usually one or two of each) to serve as the Nominations and Elections
Committee. That committee solicited and received nominations for appointment to
the group’s Executive Committee and submitted them to the members for their
approval. The Executive Committee then elected the group’s officers, including the
chairman.
The chairman of another bicameral group was elected by the group’s executive
committee. If a Member wished to serve as chairman, he or she may have solicited
support of executive committee members, who would nominate him or her. The
executive committee could be elected by the membership at large as well as by
specific members. The regional executive committee members of the group were
elected by members of their region, while the at large members were elected by the
general membership.
CRS-14
Currently, neither House nor Senate informal groups and Member organizations
can employ staff; consequently, these groups have no staff of their own. In the
Senate, where no formal recognition has ever been given to non-official Member
organizations, there are a few instances where an informal pooling of staff occurs, but
the pooling is based upon the individual Senators and not the group. Similarly, House
Members may also informally coordinate staff activities to pursue goals as an informal
group. Here again, it is the individual Members and not the group who are the
employing entities. Thus, in general, in both the House and Senate, informal group
business is handled by staff of an individual Member (often the group’s chairman,
sponsor, or coordinator) as part of their regular duties. Frequently, the staffer is a
legislative assistant who works in an area related to the group’s issue(s).
In the House, a group must register with the Committee on House
Administration as a CMO if its Members want to formally share and pay for staff to
work on group business. Current CMO regulations expressly provide that “a CMO
is not an employing authority.”19 Accordingly, it is not the CMO but the House
Members who are the employers.
9. Do informal groups have the franking privilege? Can a
Member lend his or her frank to an informal group or CMO?
The short answer to both these questions is no. In the House, the 1999 CMO
regulations expressly state that CMOs do not have the franking privilege and
Members are prohibited from lending their frank to CMOs.20 This regulation is
consistent with the advisory opinion issued by the Commission on Congressional
Mailing Standards (also known as the Franking Commission) in 1982. The
Commission held that “... Section 3215 of Title 39, United States Code, does not
permit a Member to allow a Legislative Service Organization [LSO] to use his or her
frank ... a Member cannot lend his frank to informal committees or groups composed
only of Members of Congress [i.e., CMOs], but may lend it only to official
committees created by Congress.... Absent an amendment to the franking law, the
Commission cannot advise you that it would be permissible to allow an LSO [i.e.,21
legislative service organization] to use your frank.” No such amendment to the
franking law has been adopted, and the Commission has made no change in its finding22
since that time. (The Commission’s ruling, which specifically referred to LSOs, is
considered to apply to informal groups and congressional Member organizations.)
19“Funding and Resources,” CMO Regulations, 1999.
20“Communications,” CMO Regulations, 1999.
21Morris K. Udall, Chairman, and Edward J. Derwinski, Ranking Minority Member,
Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards, letter to the Honorable William R.
Ratchford, Committee on House Administration, Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Legislative
Service Organizations, June 8, 1982. In: LSO Subcommittee Report, 1982 p. 135-136.
22Jack Dail, Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards, telephone conversation with
the author, August 26, 1999.
CRS-15
The 1999 CMO regulations do describe the way Members can communicate
information about a CMO’s activities. According to the regulations, “Member[s]
may use inside mail to communicate information related to a CMO [and they] may
refer to their membership in a CMO on their official stationery. Official funds
[however], may not be used to print or pay for stationery for the CMO.”23 (See
question 11 for information on CMO Web sites.)
In the Senate, where no formal recognition is given to Member organizations,
no authority appears to exist in law or rule upon which to conclude that informal
Member groups have the franking privilege.
10. Can official funds be used to pay for letterhead for a
CMO?
The 1999 House CMO regulations prohibit CMOs from using official funds “to
print or pay for stationery for the CMO.”24 However, a Member may refer to his or
her CMO membership on his or her official stationery.25
11. Can CMOs have their own Web site, separate and apart
from any of their Members?
Under Committee on House Administration regulations governing CMOs,
“Members may devote a section of their official Web site to CMO issues, but CMOs
may not have independent Web pages [i.e., Web sites].”26
12. What is the nature of the relationships informal groups and
Member organizations have with outside organizations?
The types of relationships that an informal group or congressional Member
organization may have with outside organizations are varied. They depend to a large
part on the scope of the congressional group’s goals and operations as well as how
they may be accomplished under the laws, regulations, and practices regarding the
conduct of Members and congressional groups.
In recent years, issues of particular concern (inside and outside the Congress)
have included: the extent to which informal groups are allowed to have relationships
with outside organizations; the nature and extent of participation by Members on the
governing bodies of outside organizations; and the ability of Members to raise funds
for non-profit, tax-exempt outside organizations. The nature and extent of the
relationships continues to be a complex and evolving issue. Members who choose to
23“Communications,” CMO Regulations, 1999.
24“Communications,” CMO Regulations, 1999.
25 Ibid .
26 Ibid .
CRS-16
be involved with outside organizations should be aware of a plethora of rules and
regulations that apply.
Under the current Code of Official Conduct, House Members are permitted to
serve on the boards of certain outside groups, including non-profit foundations, so
long as they do not serve for compensation. Pursuant to guidelines issued on April
4, 1995, by the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Members are
prohibited from raising money for any organization that is “established or controlled
by Members of Congress.”27 The only exceptions are those expressly permitted by
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct: campaigns, political action
committees (PACs), and organizations whose principal activities are unrelated to a
Member’s official duties. Questions as to whether an organization’s activities are
related to a Member’s official duties should be directed to the Committee’s Office of
Advice and Education; specific examples are provided in the Committee’s April 4,
The regulations promulgated on congressional groups have included provisions
aimed maintaining a separation between the congressional groups and those outside
non-profit foundations and institutes that provide research and policy development on
related issues. Specific questions may be referred to the Committee on House
Administration, the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, the Senate
Committee on Rules and Administration, or the Senate Committee on Ethics, as
appropriate.
Historically, some groups have served as effective coordinative links between
outside organizations and allies in Congress. Congressional groups have sometimes
responded to questions from their members by providing information from outside
groups or by referring their members to outside experts. The outside groups, in turn,
have consulted informal groups on policy options and political strategies in Congress.
Sometimes, an outside group has requested that a particular Member or
Members establish a congressional group. For example, the Ad Hoc Congressional
Committee for Irish Affairs was created (September 28, 1977) following the request
of several major Irish-American organizations, including the Ancient Order of
Hibernians and the Irish National Caucus.28 The Senate Beef Caucus was formed
after some coordinating initiative by the National Cattlemen’s Association.29
27U.S. Congress, House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Memorandum for All
Members, Officers and Employees. Revised Solicitation Guidelines. April 4, 1995. p 1.
Or see: U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Standards of Official Conduct Advisory
Memoranda, “Revised Solicitation Guidelines—April 4, 1995,”
{http:www.house.gov/ethics_memos.html], visited August 26, 1999.
28Rep. Raymond J. McGrath, “Mario Biaggi, Lifetime Member of the AOH, “ extensions of
remarks, Congressional Record, vol. 130. Sept. 20, 1984, p. 16383.
29Ward Sinclair, “On Hill, Lamb and Steer Have Unequal Footing: A Case of Contradictory
Trade Stances.” Washington Post, June 12, 1987. p. A12.
CRS-17
A number of informal congressional groups have played a role in the
establishment of institutes or foundations to conduct long-term research and policy
analyses (e.g., the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, Congressional Hispanic
Institute, and the Congressional Hunger Center). These foundations and institutes
developed in large part because, unlike congressional groups, they can accept private30
funding. Although it is not unlawful or uncommon for Members of Congress to be
involved in the establishment of such groups, some aspects of the relationship
Members have with the foundations and institutes have been the subject of some
criticism.31 Some have been concerned that contact between Member organizations
and outside groups may lead to appearances or allegations of inappropriate or undue
influence from special interests. On the other hand, it has been argued that
appropriate, ongoing contact and exchange of information between congressional
groups and outside groups can help Members to support beneficial public policy; it
may also promote favorable constituent relations. Consequently, the level and scope
of a congressional group’s involvement (if any) with outside organizations should be
carefully considered.
30Unlike the informal groups, the institutes’ status as 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundations enables
them to accept private, tax deductible contributions. Current CMO regulations expressly
provide that “neither CMOs nor individual members may accept goods, funds, or services
from private organizations or individuals to support the CMO.”
31See for example: Alice A. Love, “ LSO Foundations Take Financial Hit,” Roll Call, vol. 40,
Apr. 27, 1995, pp. 1, 17; Richard E. Cohen, “Who’s Minding the Off-Campus Cousins?”
National Journal, vol. 25, Dec. 18, 1993, p. 3012; Mary Jacoby, “Energy Institute Illustrates
Tricky Link Between LSOs and Their Foundations,” Roll Call, vol. 39, July 8, 1993, pp. 1,