Congressional Franking Privilege: Background and Current Legislation

Congressional Franking Privilege:
Background and Current Legislation
Matthew E. Glassman
Analyst on the Congress
Government and Finance Division
Summary
The congressional franking privilege, which dates from 1775, allows Members of
Congress to transmit mail matter under their signature without postage. Congress,
through legislative branch appropriations, reimburses the U.S. Postal Service for the
franked mail it handles. Use of the frank is regulated by federal law, House and Senate
rules, and committee regulations. Reform efforts during the past 20 years have reduced
overall franking expenditures in both election and non-election years. Even-numbered-
year franking expenditures have been reduced by almost 70% from $113.4 million in
FY1988 to $34.3 million in F2006, while odd-numbered-year franking expenditures
have been reduced by over 80% from $89.5 million in FY1989 to $17.5 million in
FY2007.
During the 110^th Congress, five pieces of legislation have been introduced to alter
the franking privilege for Members. H.R. 2788 would require that all pieces of mail sent
in a mass mailing include a statement indicating the cost of producing and mailing the
mass mailing. H.R. 2687 would prohibit mass mailings in the form of newsletters,
questionnaires, or congratulatory notices. H.R. 1614, S. 936, and S. 1285 would prohibit
Senators and Representatives from sending mass mailings during a period starting 90
days prior to a primary and ending on the day of the general election for any election in
which the Member is a candidate for reelection. This report will be updated as
legislative action warrants. See CRS Report RS34085, Election Year Restrictions on
Mass Mailings by Members of Congress: How H.R. 1614/ S. 936 / S. 1285 Would
Change Current Law; CRS Report RL34188, Congressional Official Mail Costs; and
CRS Report RL34274, Franking Privilege: Historical Development and Options for
Change.
Background
The franking privilege, which allows Members of Congress to transmit mail matter
under their signature without postage, has its roots in 17^th century Great Britain. The
British House of Commons instituted it in 1660 and free mail was available to many

officials under the colonial postal system.¹ In 1775, the First Continental Congress passed
legislation giving Members mailing privileges so they could communicate with their
constituents, as well as giving free mailing privileges to soldiers.² Congress continues to
use the franking privilege to satisfy an articulated public interest in facilitating official
communications from elected officials to the citizens whom they represent. The
communications may include letters in response to constituent requests for information,
newsletters regarding legislation and Member votes, press releases about official Member
activities, copies of the Congressional Record and government reports, and notices about
upcoming town meetings organized by Members.
Member Mail Allowances
Congress pays the U.S. Postal Service for franked mail through annual
appropriations for the legislative branch. Each chamber uses a formula to allocate funds
to Members from these appropriations. In the Senate, the allocation process is
administered by the Committee on Rules and Administration; in the House, by the
Committee on House Administration.
In the Senate, each Senator’s franked mail postage allowance is determined by a
formula that gives a maximum allowance equal to the cost of one first-class mailing to
every address in the Senator’s state. If the total Senate appropriation for official mail is
less than the amount required for the maximum allowance, each Senator’s allowance is
proportionally reduced.³ A Senate office that exceeds its allowance may supplement the
allowance with official office account funds. Senators are, however, limited to $50,000
for mass mailings (defined as 500 or more identical pieces of unsolicited mail) in any
fiscal year.⁴
In the House, the franked mail postage allowance is based on the number of
addresses in each Member’s district.⁵ Each Representative’s mail allowance is combined
with allowances for office staff and official office expenses to form a Member’s
Representational Allowance (MRA). Members may spend any portion of their MRA on
franked mail, subject to law and House regulations.⁶ Within the limits of their MRA,
House Members are not restricted as to the total amount they may spend on mass
mailings.

¹ Post Office Act, 12 Charles II (1660); Carl H. Scheele, A Short History of the Mail Service
(Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1970), pp. 47-55.
² Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789, 34 vols., ed. Worthington C. Ford et al. (New
York: Johnson Reprint Corp., 1968), vol. 3, p. 342 (Nov. 8, 1775).
³ “Regulations governing official mail,” adopted Oct. 30, 1997, amended Sep. 30, 1998,
Congressional Record, vol. 144, part 16 (Oct. 2, 1998), pp. 23105-23108.
⁴ Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, FY1995, P.L. 103-283, sec. 5, 108 Stat. 1423, 1427.
⁵ Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, FY1991, P.L. 101-520, sec. 311, 104 Stat. 2254, 2279.
⁶ Committee Order No. 42, U.S. Congress, Committee on House Oversight, Report on the
Activities of the Committee on House Oversight During the 105^th Congress, 105^th Cong., 2^nd sess.,
H.Rept. 105-850 (Washington: GPO, 1999), p. 16; Legislative Branch Appropriations Act,
FY2000, P.L. 106-57, sec. 103, 113 Stat. 408, 416.

Regulation
The franking privilege is regulated by federal law, House and Senate rules, orders
of the Committee on House Administration and Senate Rules and Administration
Committee, and regulations of the Senate Select Committee on Ethics and the House
Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards.
The franking privilege may only be used for matters of public concern or public
service.⁷ It may not be used to solicit votes or contributions, to send mail regarding
political campaigns or political parties, or to mail autobiographical or holiday greeting
materials. Both House and Senate regulations specify limitations on the size and
formatting of franked mail. Official funds must be used in the preparation of materials
sent under the frank; no private funds may supplement printing, production, or other
costs.⁸
Mass mailings are further restricted by law and chamber rules and regulations.⁹ Each
mass mailing sent by a Member of Congress must bear the following notice: “Prepared,
Published, and Mailed at Taxpayer Expense.”¹⁰ Senators are prohibited from sending
mass mailings fewer than 60 days prior to any primary election in which they are a
candidate, as well as 60 days prior to any general election, regardless of whether or not
they are a candidate.¹¹ House Members are prohibited from sending mass mailings fewer
than 90 days prior to any general or primary election in which they are a candidate,¹² and
are prohibited from sending unsolicited mass mailings outside their district.¹³
Franking regulations also require disclosure of individual Members’ mass mailings
costs. In the House, costs are printed quarterly in the Statement of Disbursements of the
House. Senate costs appear in the biannual Report of the Secretary of the Senate.
Costs
During FY2007, Congress spent $17.5 million on official mail according to the U.S.
Postal Service, representing approximately 4½ tenths of one percent of the $3.85 billion

⁷ 39 U.S.C. § 3210(3)(a).
⁸ Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, FY1991, P.L. 101-520, sec. 311(c), 104 Stat. 2254,

2279.

⁹ A mass mailing is defined at 39 U.S.C. 3210(6)(e) as “any mailing of newsletters or other
pieces of mail with substantially identical content (whether such mail is deposited singly or in
bulk, or at the same time or different times), totaling more than 500 pieces” in one session of
Congress. Direct responses, correspondence with government officials, and releases to the media
are exempt.
¹⁰ Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, FY1997, P.L. 104-197, sec. 311(a), 110 Stat. 2394,

2414.

¹¹ 39 U.S.C. § 3210(6)(a); “Regulations governing official mail,” adopted Oct. 30, 1997, amended
Sep. 30, 1998, Congressional Record, vol. 144, part 16 (Oct. 2, 1998), pp. 23105-23108.
¹² 39 U.S.C. § 3210(6)(a).
¹³ Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, FY1993, P.L. 102-392, sec. 309, 106 Stat. 1703, 1722.

budget for the entire legislative branch for FY2007.¹⁴ House official mail costs ($14.2
million) were 81.1% of the total, whereas Senate official mail costs ($3.3 million) were
18.9% of the total. During FY2006, Congress spent $34.3 million on official mail. House
official mail costs ($30.7 million) were 89.3% of the total, whereas Senate official mail
costs ($3.6 million) were 10.7% of the total.
These expenditures continue a historical pattern of Congress spending less on official
mail costs during non-election years than during election years. However, analysis of
monthly data on official mail costs indicates that, due to the structure of the fiscal year
calendar, comparisons of election-year and non-election-year mailing data tend to
overstate the effect of pre-election increases in mail costs, because it also captures the
effect of a large spike in mail costs from December of the previous calendar year.¹⁵
During the past 20 years, franking reform efforts reduced franking expenditures in
both even-numbered and odd-numbered years. Even-numbered-year franking
expenditures have been reduced by almost 70% from $113.4 million in FY1988 to $34.3
million in F2006, while odd-numbered-year franking expenditures have been reduced by
over 80% from $89.5 million in FY1989 to $17.5 million in FY2007. House mail costs
have decreased from a high of $77.9 million in FY1988 to $14.2 million in FY2007. The
Senate has dramatically reduced its costs, from $43.6 million in FY1984 to $3.3 million
in FY2007.
Legislation in the 110^th Congress
Despite contemporary restrictions on mass mailings and overall reduced costs, the
frank continues to generate controversy. Opponents, concerned about incumbent electoral
advantages and mail costs, have called for additional franking restrictions, including
prohibitions on the use of the frank in election years, bans on unsolicited mass mailings,
and free mailings for electoral challengers. Proponents of franking argue that the privilege
serves an important informational role in a democratic society and that without the
privilege most Members could not afford to send important information to their
constituents.
Five bills introduced in the 110^th Congress — H.R. 1614, H.R. 2687, H.R 2788, S.
936, and S. 1285 — would alter the congressional franking privilege. Provisions of the
five bills are discussed here.
Prohibiting Member Mass Mailings. H.R. 2687 would effectively prohibit
Representatives from mass mailing newsletters, questionnaires, or congratulatory notices.
The prohibition would not cover certain other types of mass mailings made by Members,
including federal documents (such as the Congressional Record) or voter registration
information. The legislation would apply only to Representatives; it would not affect mass
mailings made by Senators.

¹⁴ Throughout this report, cost figures are based on U.S. Postal Service data found in the Annual
Report of the Postmaster General, additional data provided by the Postal Service, and mass
mailing information contained in the Statement of Disbursements of the House and the Report
of the Secretary of the Senate.
¹⁵ See CRS Report RL34188, Congressional Official Mail Costs, by Matthew Glassman.

Current law allows Members to send mass mailings in various forms (newsletters,
questionnaires, press releases, notices) on a variety of topics, including but not limited to
the impact of laws and decisions, public and official actions taken by Members of
Congress, proposed or pending legislation or governmental actions, the positions of the
Members of Congress on legislation or other public issues, and other related matters of
public concern or public service.¹⁶
H.R. 2687 was introduced June 12, 2007, by Representative Ray LaHood, and was
referred to the Committee on House Administration and the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform. No further action has been taken. Previously, Representative
LaHood introduced similar legislation (H.R. 3121, 109^th Congress), which was referred
to the Committee on House Administration and the Committee on Government Reform.
No further action was taken.
Cost Labeling for Mass Mailings. H.R. 2788 would require that each individual
piece of franked mail contained in a mass mailing made by a Member of the House
contain a statement indicating the aggregate cost of producing and mailing the mass
mailing. Each piece of franked mail would contain the statement, “The aggregate cost of
this mailing to the taxpayer is _____,” with the blank space containing the total cost of
producing and franking the mass mailing. The legislation would not affect mass mailings
made by Senators.
Current law requires each mass mailing sent by a Member of Congress to bear the
following notice: “Prepared, Published, and Mailed at Taxpayer Expense.”¹⁷ H.R. 2788
does not amend the current law; if enacted, mass mailings made by Members of the House
would contain both statements.
H.R. 2788 was introduced on June 20, 2007, by Representative Jeff Flake, and was
referred to the Committee on House Administration. No further action has been taken.
Amending Pre-Election Mass Mail Restrictions. H.R. 1614, S. 936, and S.
1285 would amend election-year mass-mailing restrictions by altering the period of time
during which Members are prohibited from franking any mass mailing and the statutory
conditions under which the prohibition applies. If enacted, Members of both the House
and Senate would be prohibited from mailing any mass mailing during the period starting
90 days prior to a primary election in which such Member is a candidate for reelection to
any federal office and ending on the day of the general election.¹⁸
Current law and chamber rules provide that a mass mailing may not be franked by
a Senator fewer than 60 days, or by a House Member fewer than 90 days, immediately
before the date of any primary or general election (whether regular, special, or runoff) in

¹⁶ 39 U.S.C. § 3210(a)(3).
¹⁷ Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, FY1997, P.L. 104-197, sec. 311(a), 110 Stat. 2394,

2414.

¹⁸ For further information on H.R. 1614, S. 936, and S. 1285, see CRS Report RL34085, Election
Year Restrictions on Mass Mailings by Members of Congress: How H.R. 1614, S. 936, and S.

1285 Would Change Current Law, by Matthew E. Glassman.

which such Member is a candidate for any public office.¹⁹ Senate rules further state that
no Senator may frank mass mailings in the 60 days prior to the general election, regardless
of whether or not he or she is a candidate for election.²⁰
H.R. 1614, S. 936, and S. 1285 would also prohibit a congressional committee or
subcommittee from mailing any mass mailing during the same period individual Members
are prohibited from franking any mass mailing, if either the chair or ranking member of
the committee or subcommittee is a candidate for reelection to any federal office. Current
law does not prohibit congressional committees and subcommittees from sending mass
mailings during the election-year period in which individual Members are restricted from
franking any mass mailing.
H.R. 1614 and S. 936 were both introduced March 20, 2007. H.R. 1614, introduced
by Representative John Tierney, was referred to the Committees on House
Administration, Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Oversight and Government
Reform. No further action has been taken. S. 936, introduced by Senator Richard Durbin,
was referred to the Committee on Finance. No further action has been taken. S. 1285 was
introduced by Senator Durbin May 3, 2007, and was referred to the Committee on Rules
and Administration. The committee held a hearing on S. 1285 on June 20, 2007. No
further action has been taken.
Previously, Representative Tierney introduced similar legislation (H.R. 3099, 109^th
Congress). Had the legislation been enacted, it would have amended the election year
mass mailing restrictions on Members by extending the period during which mass
mailings were prohibited. H.R. 3099 did not contain provisions restricting committee
mass mailings. The bill was referred to the House Committees on House Administration,
Energy and Commerce, and Government Reform. No further action was taken.

¹⁹ 39 U.S.C. § 3210(6)(a).
²⁰ U.S. Senate Handbook, Appendix I-D, p. I-116, available from Senate computers at
[http://webster/rules/rules.cfm?page=handbook], visited 12/4/07; Senate Ethics Manual, p. 171,
available at [http://ethics.senate.gov/downloads/pdffiles/manual.pdf], visited 12/4/07.