Summary
Congressional Official Mail Costs
Matthew Eric Glassman
Analyst on the Congress
August 16, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL34188
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Congressional Official Mail Costs
Summary
The congressional franking privilege allows Members of Congress to send official mail via the
U.S. Postal Service at government expense. This report provides information and analysis on the
costs of franked mail in the House of Representatives and Senate.
In FY2009
In FY2014, total expenditures on official mail were $16
,793,101.9 million. House official mail costs
($14,274,081) were 85.0 ($15.1 million) were 89% of the total, whereas Senate official mail costs ($
2,519,020) were
15.01.8 million) were 11% of the total. In
FY2008, overallFY2013, total expenditures on official mail were $
32,613,0967.6 million. House
official mail costs ($
30,237,342) were 92.76.2 million) were 82% of the total, whereas Senate
official mail costs ($
2,375,754)
were 7.31.4 million) were 18% of the total.
These expenditures continue an historical pattern of Congress spending less on official mail costs
during non-election years than during election
- years (Figure 3). 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 capturesthey also capture the effect of a large spike in mail
costs from December of the previous calendar year.
The analysis demonstrates that between FY2000 and
FY2009FY2014, higher official mail costs in
evennumberedeven-numbered fiscal years occurred for two reasons: a general increase in monthly mail costs prior to
the pre-election prohibited period, and a significant spike in costs during December of
oddnumberedodd-numbered calendar years. Both increases were largely the result of an increase in the number of House
Members sending mass mailings during those months.
During the past 20 years, franking reform efforts reduced
Reform efforts during the past 30 years have reduced overall franking expenditures in both
evennumbered and odd-numberedelection and non-election years. Even-numbered
-year franking expenditures have been
reduced by
almost 70over 85% from $113.4 million in FY1988 to $
32.616.9 million in
FY2008FY2014, while
oddnumbered odd-numbered-year franking expenditures have been reduced by over
8090% from $89.5 million in
FY1989 to $
16.87.6 million in
FY2007FY2013. House mail costs have decreased from a high of $77.9
million in FY1988 to $
14.215.1 million in
FY2009FY2014. The Senate has dramatically reduced its costs,
from $43.6 million in FY1984 to $
2.51.8 million in
FY2009.
This report will be updated annually.
Congressional Research Service
Congressional Official Mail Costs
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................1
Official Mail Costs, FY2005 to FY2009......................................................................................1
Official Mail Costs................................................................................................................2
Election Year vs. Non-election Year.......................................................................................2
Official Mail Costs, FY1954 - FY2008........................................................................................4
Increased Costs, FY1954-FY1988.........................................................................................5
Costs Reduced, FY1988-FY2009 ..........................................................................................5
Monthly Variation, FY2000 to FY2009 .................................................................................6
Figures
Figure 1. Monthly Official Mail Costs.........................................................................................3
Figure 2. Franked Mail Costs (FY1954-FY1977) and Official Congressional Mail Costs
(FY1978-FY2009) ...................................................................................................................5
Figure 3. Official Mail Costs, by Chamber, FY1978-FY2009 ......................................................6
Figure 4. Monthly Official Mail Costs, House, FY2000-FY2009 .................................................7
Figure 5. Monthly Official Mail Costs, Senate, FY2000-FY2009.................................................8
Figure 6. Monthly Official Mail Costs, Senate (re-scaled), FY2000 to FY2009............................9
Tables
Table 1. Official Mail Costs, by Fiscal Year and Calendar Year, 2005 to 2009..............................4
Contacts
Author Contact Information ........................................................................................................9
Congressional Research Service
Congressional Official Mail Costs
Introduction
FY2014.
This report will be updated annually.
Congressional Official Mail Costs
Introduction
The franking privilege, which allows Members of Congress to send official mail via the U.S.
Postal Service at government expense, has its roots in
17th17th century Great Britain; the British
House of Commons instituted it in 1660.
11 In the United States, the practice dates from 1775,
when the First Continental Congress passed legislation giving its Members mailing privileges so
as to communicate with their constituents.
2
2
Congress continues to use the franking privilege to help Members communicate with their
constituents. 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.
The franking privilege is regulated by federal law, House and Senate rules, regulations of the
Committee on House Administration and the 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.
33 It may not be used to solicit votes or contributions, to send mail
regarding campaigns or political parties, or to mail autobiographical or holiday greeting materials.
Although few would argue with the intent behind the frank—to help Members better
communicate with their constituents—the privilege in recent years has been subjected to
increased public criticism and extensive scrutiny by the media. Proponents of franking argue that,
without the privilege, most Members could not afford to send important information to their
constituents, in effect curtailing the delivery of ideas, reports, assistance, and services.
Opponents, concerned with incumbent perquisites, mail costs, and the overall cost of Congress,
have called for additional changes to the franking privilege, including an outright ban on franking
for Members and a prohibition on use of the frank in election years.
Significant reforms have been adopted as a consequence of this debate. Although the cost of
official congressional mail has fluctuated widely
over the past 30 years, franking reform efforts
have produced over
a 70an 85% reduction in even-numbered-year costs and over an
8090% reduction in
odd-numbered-year costs in the
last 20past 30 years, from a high of $113.4 million and $89.5 million in
FY1988 and FY1989 to $
327.6 million and $16.
89 million in
FY2008 and FY2009.
FY2013 and FY2014.
Official Mail Costs, FY2005 to
FY2009
FY2014
Despite common public perception, franking is not free. Congress pays the U.S. Postal Service
for franked mail through annual appropriations for the legislative branch. Each chamber makes an
allotment to Members from these appropriations. In the Senate, the allocation process is
1
Post Office Act, 12 Charles II (1660).
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
U.S.C. § 3210(3)(a).
Congressional Research Service
1
Congressional Official Mail Costs
administered by the Committee on Rules and Administration; in the House, by the Committee on
House Administration.
Official Mail Costs
Overall congressional mail costs include official mail sent by Members (both regular and mass
mail), committees, and chamber officers.
44 During
FY2009FY2014, Congress spent $16.
89 million on
official mail according to the U.S. Postal Service, representing slightly less than
4 four-tenths of
one
percent1% of the $4.
403 billion budget for the entire legislative branch for
FY2009.5FY2014.5 House official
mail costs ($
14.315.1 million) were
85.089% of the total, whereas Senate official mail costs ($
2.5
1.8 million) were
15.011% of the total.
During
FY2008FY2013, Congress spent $
327.6 million on official mail. House official mail costs ($
30.2
6.2 million) were
92.782% of the total, whereas Senate official mail costs ($
21.4 million) were
7.318% of
the total. During
FY2007FY2012, Congress spent $
17.524.8 million on official mail. House official mail costs
($14.2 ($23.3 million) were
81.194% of the total, whereas Senate official mail costs ($
3.31.5 million) were
18.9 6% of the total.
During
FY2006, Congress spent $34.3 million on official mailFY2011, total expenditures on official mail were $12.8 million. House official mail costs ($
30.7
11.3 million) were
89.388% of the total, whereas Senate official mail costs ($
3.61.5 million) were
10.712% of
the total. During FY2005, Congress spent $17.6 million on official mail the total. In FY2010, total expenditures on official mail were $36.3 million. House official mail costs
($14.4 ($34.1 million) were
81.894% of the total, whereas Senate official mail costs ($
3.12.2 million) were
18.2 6% of the total.
Election Year vs. Non-election Year
The higher official mail costs in
FY2008 and FY2006 than in FY2009 and FY2007 continues a
FY2014, FY2012, FY2010, FY2008, and FY2006 compared with FY2013, FY2011, FY2009, and FY2007 continue a historical pattern of Congress spending more on official mail costs during election years.
However, monthly data indicate that election year costs may be attributable to multiple factors.
Figure 1 plots monthly congressional mail costs from October
2004 to December 2009.
4
Official mail costs include franked mail only, and do not include the cost of stationery supplies or production costs.
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.
5
Congressional Research Service
2
Congressional Official Mail Costs
Figure 1. Monthly Official Mail Costs
October 2004 to May 2010
8
Millions of Dollars
FY05
FY06
FY07
FY08
FY09
December 2009
December 2005
6
December 2007
August 2006
August 2008
4
2
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Oct-04
Nov-04
Dec-04
Jan-05
Feb-05
Mar-05
Apr-05
May-05
Jun-05
Jul-05
Aug-05
Sep-05
Oct-05
Nov-05
Dec-05
Jan-06
Feb-06
Mar-06
Apr-06
May-06
Jun-06
Jul-06
Aug-06
Sep-06
Oct-06
Nov-06
Dec-06
Jan-07
Feb-07
Mar-07
Apr-07
May-07
Jun-07
Jul-07
Aug-07
Sep-07
Oct-07
Nov-07
Dec-07
Jan-08
Feb-08
Mar-08
Apr-08
May-08
Jun-08
Jul-08
Aug-08
Sep-08
Oct-08
Nov-08
Dec-08
Jan-09
Feb-09
Mar-09
Apr-09
May-09
Jun-09
Jul-09
Aug-09
Sep-09
Oct-09
Nov-09
Dec-09
Jan-10
Feb-10
Mar-10
Apr-10
May-10
Q1
0
2005 to December 2014.
Figure 1. Election-Year vs. Non-Election-Year Costs
(FY2006 to FY2014)
Source: CRS analysis of U.S. Postal Service Data
.
As shown in Figure 1
, the lowest monthly costs occur in the fourth quarter (October, November, and December) of the even-numbered calendar years, corresponding to the first quarter of the odd-numbered fiscal years, the lowest monthly costs occur in October ($0.3 million) and November
2004 ($0.7 million); September ($0.7 million), October ($0.4 million), and November 2006 ($0.5
million); and September ($0.6 million), October ($0.6 million), and November 2008 ($0.4
million). This reflects the prohibition on mass mailing in the Senate (60 days) and House (90
days) prior to the general elections of November
2004, November 2006, and November 2008.6
2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2014.6
The higher monthly costs occurred in December 2005 ($5.8 million), December 2007 ($5.0
million), December 2009 ($6.6 million)
, December 2011 ($5.4 million), December 2013 ($2.9 million), and the six months (March-August) prior to the
preelectionpre-election prohibited period for the 2006
, 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2014 and 2008 general
election.
elections.
Figure 1 demonstrates that the higher mail costs in FY2006
, FY2008, FY2010, FY2012, and FY2014 and FY2008 result from two separate
events: a general increase in monthly mail costs prior to the pre-election prohibited period, and a
significant spike in costs during December of 2005
, December of 2007, December of 2009, December 2011, and December of
20072013, perhaps reflecting the
traditional end-of-session newsletters many Members mail to constituents.
Both of these increases are largely due to increased mailings by the House during those periods.
House mailings made during the first quarter (October-December) of FY2006
, FY2008, FY2010, FY2012, and FY2014 cost and FY2008 cost
$9.6 million
and, $9.4 million,
$11.2 million, and $9.5 million respectively, compared to an average of $
4.41.5 million over the four
quarters of
FY2007 and $3.7 million over the four quarters of FY2005. House mailings made
during the second quarter ($5.1 million and $6.2 million, respectively) and third quarter ($6.8
6
39 U.S.C. § 3210(6)(a); 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.
Congressional Research Service
3
Congressional Official Mail Costs
million and $8.2 million, respectively) of FY2006 and FY2008 also were significantly higher
than the FY2005 or FY2007 quarterly average.
FY2013, $2.8 million over the four quarters of FY2011, $3.7 million over the four quarters of FY2009, and $4.4 million over the four quarters of FY2007. House mailings made during the second quarter and third quarter of FY2008, FY2010, FY2012, and FY2014 also were significantly higher than the FY2007, FY2009, FY2011, or FY2013 quarterly average.
Critics of the franking privilege have often cited increased election-year mail costs as evidence of
political use of the frank prior to elections.
77 Although mail costs do rise in the months prior to the
pre-election prohibited period, Figure 1 shows that the structure of the fiscal calendar is also
important in creating large disparities between election year and non-election year mail costs.
Since the fiscal years run from October 1 to September 30, both the December spike in mail costs
and the pre-election rise in mail costs occur in the same fiscal year, despite taking place in
different calendar years and different sessions of Congress. Table 1 compares mail costs between
2005 and
20092013, measured by fiscal and calendar year.
Table 1. Official Mail Costs, by Fiscal Year and Calendar Year, 2005 to
2009
Overall Official Mail Costsa
Year
Fiscal Year
Calendar Year
2005
$17.6 million
$24.5 million
2006
$34.3 million
$26.6 million
2007
$17.5 million
$24.8 million
2008
$32.6 million
$25.4 million
2009
$16.8 million
$26.5 million
Source: CRS analysis of U.S. Postal Service data
a.
Columns do not sum to the same total because fiscal years and calendar years do not correspond. FY2005
includes data from October-December 2004 and CY2008 includes data from October-December 2008.
As shown in Table 1, when annual costs are compared by calendar year, the December spike and
the pre-election increase balance out, and the totals are relatively similar. Thus comparisons of
fiscal year official mail costs tend to overstate the effect of pre-election increases in mail costs,
because they also capture the effect of the December spike in mail costs.
Official Mail Costs, FY1954 - FY2009
Data on congressional official mail costs is only available back to FY1978. The Post Office,
however, kept records of overall franking costs beginning in FY1954, when Congress began
reimbursing the Post Office for franked mail costs. Franked mail costs differ only slightly from
congressional official mail costs, as they include the franking privilege granted to former
Presidents and widows of former Presidents.
Figure 2 is a plot of overall franked mail costs (FY1954 to FY1977) and official mail costs
(FY1978 to FY2009) in both current and constant 1954 dollars.
7
See Common Cause, “Franks A Lot,” press release, June 16, 1989, Common Cause Records, 1968-1991, Series 15,
Box 293, Princeton University, Seeley G. Mudd Manuscript Library; Common Cause v. Bolger, 512 F. Supp. 26, 32
(D.D.C. 1980).
Congressional Research Service
4
Congressional Official Mail Costs
Figure 2. Franked Mail Costs (FY1954-FY1977) and Official Congressional Mail Costs
(FY1978-FY2009)
(current and constant 1954 dollars)
120
Millions of dollars
100
Current dollars
80
60
-------- Franked Mail Costs
Official Mail Costs
40
Constant dollars
20
0
FY 1954
1960
1966
1972
1978
1984
1990
1996
2002
2008
Source: CRS analysis of U.S. Postal Service data.
Figure 2 demonstrates that franked mail/official mail costs significantly increased and then
significantly decreased between FY1954 and FY2009. Although costs began to increase during
the 1960s, the largest increases occurred during the 1970s. Costs remained high during the 1980s,
and then were reduced significantly beginning in FY1989.
Increased Costs, FY1954-FY1988
The sharp increase in costs that begins in the late 1960s and extends into the 1980s is plausibly
attributable to several factors. The overall volume of mail sent by Members of Congress
increased rapidly during this time period, aided by computer technology that simplified the
creation of mass-mailing newsletters and other frankable mail. Second, postal rates increased
significantly during the same time period, with first-class mail rates more than tripling from 8
cents in FY1972 to 25 cents by FY1988. Standard mail (formerly third-class) rates doubled from
5 cents in FY1972 to 10 cents in FY1988.
Costs Reduced, FY1988-FY2009
Official congressional mail costs have decreased significantly in the past 20 years. Evennumbered-year franking expenditures have been reduced by almost 70% from $113.4 million in
FY1988 to $32.6 million in FY2008. Odd-numbered-year franking expenditures have been
reduced by over 80% from $89.5 million in FY1989 to $16.8 million in FY2009. Figure 3
illustrates changes in official mail costs, by chamber, between FY1978 and FY2007.
The decrease in official mail expenditures during the early 1990s was primarily due to
congressional reforms that placed individual limits on Members’ mail costs and required public
Congressional Research Service
5
Congressional Official Mail Costs
disclosure of individual Member franking expenditures.8 In 1986, the Senate established a
franking allowance for each Senator and for the first time disclosed individual Member mail
costs.9 In 1990, the House established a separate franking allowance for its Members and required
public disclosure of individual mail costs.10
Figure 3. Official Mail Costs, by Chamber, FY1978-FY2009
Millions of Dollars
100
80
60
House
40
20
Senate
0
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
FY
Source: CRS analysis of U.S. Postal Service data
Source: CRS analysis of U.S. Postal Service data.
Tighter restrictions were also placed on Member mass mailings. Since October 1992, Members
have been prohibited from sending mass mailings outside their districts.11 Since October 1994,
Senators have been limited to mass mailings that do not exceed $50,000 per session of Congress.
Senators may not use the frank for mass mailings above that amount.12 Finally, the widespread
adoption of new communications technology (such as email) since 1995 has shifted a proportion
of communications formerly sent via franked mail to electronic format.
Monthly Variation, FY2000 to FY2009
Official mail costs in both the House and Senate have shown significant monthly variation.
Figure 4 plots monthly official mail costs for the House of Representatives from FY2000 to
FY2009.13
8
For a historical overview of franking regulations, see CRS Report RL34274, Franking Privilege: Historical
Development and Options for Change, by Matthew Eric Glassman.
9
S.Res. 500, 99th Cong., 2nd sess., agreed to in the Senate Oct. 8, 1986.
10
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, FY1991, P.L. 101-520, 104 Stat. 2254, 2279, sec. 311.
11
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, FY1993, P.L. 102-392, 106 Stat. 1703, 1722, sec. 309.
12
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, FY1995, P.L. 103-283, Stat. 1423, secs. 5, 108.
13
Monthly official mail costs data are not available prior to FY2000.
Congressional Research Service
6
Congressional Official Mail Costs
Figure 4. Monthly Official Mail Costs, House, FY2000-FY2009
Millions of Dollars
8.0
7.0
Dec-09
Dec-03
Dec-01
6.0
Dec-05
Dec-99
5.0
Dec-07
4.0
Aug-06
Aug-02
Aug-00
Jul-04
Jul-08
3.0
2.0
1.0
Sep-00
Oct-04
Oct-02
Oct-06
0.0
FY
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Source: CRS analysis of U.S. Postal Service data
Source: CRS analysis of U.S. Postal Service data.
Figure 4 demonstrates that the spikes in official mail costs found in FY2006 and FY2008 (as
described in Table 1) are regular trends. From FY2000 to FY2009, peaks in House official mail
cost occur cyclically, with the highest costs found in December of odd-numbered years and July
or August of even-numbered years. The lowest costs occur during the pre-election months in
which Member mass mailings are prohibited, and in the months immediately following the
general elections.
Figure 5, plotting2014
Overall Official Mail Costsa
|
|
Year
|
Fiscal Year
|
Calendar Year
|
|
2005
|
$17.6 million
|
$24.5 million
|
|
2006
|
$34.3 million
|
$26.6 million
|
|
2007
|
$17.5 million
|
$24.8 million
|
|
2008
|
$32.6 million
|
$25.4 million
|
|
2009
|
$16.8 million
|
$26.5 million
|
|
2010
|
$36.3 million
|
$26.9 million
|
|
2011
|
$12.8 million
|
$18.8 million
|
|
2012
|
$24.8 million
|
$16.3 million
|
|
2013
|
$7.6 million
|
$11.3 million
|
|
2014
|
$16.9 million
|
$12.5 million
|
Source: CRS analysis of U.S. Postal Service data.
a. Columns do not sum to the same total because fiscal years and calendar years do not correspond. FY2005 includes data from October-December 2004 and CY2014 includes data from October-December 2014.
As shown in Table 1, when annual costs are compared by calendar year, the December spike and the pre-election increase balance out, and the totals are relatively similar. Thus comparisons of fiscal year official mail costs tend to overstate the effect of pre-election increases in mail costs, because they also capture the effect of the December spike in mail costs.
Official Mail Costs, FY1954-FY2014
Data on congressional official mail costs are only available back to FY1978. The Post Office, however, kept records of overall franking costs beginning in FY1954, when Congress began reimbursing the Post Office for franked mail costs. Franked mail costs differ only slightly from congressional official mail costs, as they include the franking privilege granted to former Presidents and widows of former Presidents.
Figure 2 is a plot of overall franked mail costs (FY1954 to FY1977) and official mail costs (FY1978 to FY2014) in both current and constant 1954 dollars.
Figure 2. Franked Mail (FY1954-FY1977) and Official Mail (FY1978-FY2014) Costs
(current and constant 1954 dollars)
|
Source: CRS analysis of U.S. Postal Service data.
|
Figure 2 demonstrates that franked mail/official mail costs significantly increased and then significantly decreased between FY1954 and FY2014. Although costs began to increase during the 1960s, the largest increases occurred during the 1970s. Costs remained high during the 1980s, and then were reduced significantly beginning in FY1989.
Increased Costs, FY1954-FY1988
The sharp increase in costs that begins in the late 1960s and extends into the 1980s is plausibly attributable to several factors. The overall volume of mail sent by Members of Congress increased rapidly during this time period, aided by computer technology that simplified the creation of mass-mailing newsletters and other frankable mail. Second, postal rates increased significantly during the same time period, with first-class mail rates more than tripling from 8 cents in FY1972 to 25 cents by FY1988. Standard mail (formerly third-class) rates doubled from 5 cents in FY1972 to 10 cents in FY1988.
Costs Reduced, FY1988-FY2014
Official congressional mail costs have decreased significantly in the past 30 years. Even-numbered-year franking expenditures have been reduced by over 85% from $113.4 million in FY1988 to $16.9 million in FY2014. Odd-numbered-year franking expenditures have been reduced by over 90% from $89.5 million in FY1989 to $7.6 million in FY2013. Figure 3 illustrates changes in official mail costs, by chamber, between FY1978 and FY2014.
The decrease in official mail expenditures during the early 1990s was primarily due to congressional reforms that placed individual limits on Members' mail costs and required public disclosure of individual Member franking expenditures.8 In 1986, the Senate established a franking allowance for each Senator and for the first time disclosed individual Member mail costs.9 In 1990, the House established a separate franking allowance for its Members and required public disclosure of individual mail costs.10
Figure 3. Official Mail Costs, FY1978-FY2014
By Chamber, Nominal Dollars
|
Source: CRS analysis of U.S. Postal Service data.
|
Tighter restrictions were also placed on Member mass mailings. Since October 1992, Members have been prohibited from sending mass mailings outside their districts.11 Since October 1994, Senators have been limited to mass mailings that do not exceed $50,000 per session of Congress. Senators may not use the frank for mass mailings above that amount.12 Finally, the widespread adoption of new communications technology (such as email) since 1995 has shifted a proportion of communications formerly sent via franked mail to electronic format.
Monthly Variation, FY2000 to FY2014
Official mail costs in both the House and Senate have shown significant monthly variation. Figure 4 plots monthly official mail costs for the House of Representatives from FY2000 to FY2014.13
Figure 4. Monthly Official Mail Costs, House, FY2000-FY2014
Nominal Dollars
|
Source: CRS analysis of U.S. Postal Service data.
|
Figure 4 demonstrates that the spikes in official mail costs found in FY2006, FY2008, FY2010, FY2012, and FY2014 (as described in Table 1) are regular trends. From FY2000 to FY2014, peaks in House official mail cost occur cyclically, with the highest costs found in December of odd-numbered years and July or August of even-numbered years. The lowest costs occur during the pre-election months in which Member mass mailings are prohibited, and in the months immediately following the general elections.
Figure 5 plots monthly official mail costs for the Senate on the same scale as Figure 4
,
. The figure demonstrates the relatively low costs of Senate official mail in comparison to House official mail
costs. These lower costs are attributable to proportionally fewer Senators than Representatives
franking mass mailings, as well as Senate rules that limit Senators to $50,000 for mass mailings
in any fiscal year.14
14
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, FY1995, P.L. 103-283, Stat. 1423, sec. 5.
Congressional Research Service
7
Congressional Official Mail Costs
Figure 5. Monthly Official Mail Costs, Senate, FY2000-FY2009
Millions of Dollars
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
Sep-07
Sep-05
Sep-03
Sep-09
Sep-00
0.0
FY
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Source: CRS analysis of U.S. Postal Service data
Source: CRS analysis of U.S. Postal Service data.
Figure 6 provides a re-scaled view of monthly Senate official mail costs. The pattern of costs in
the Senate are in any fiscal year.14
Figure 5. Monthly Official Mail Costs, Senate, FY2000-FY2014
Nominal Dollars
Source: CRS analysis of U.S. Postal Service data.
Figure 5 shows that the pattern of costs in the Senate is similar to the House of Representatives, but not as pronounced. Costs peak
annually in September, and are higher in the months just prior to the pre-election prohibited
period.
Congressional Research Service
8
Congressional Official Mail Costs
Figure 6. Monthly Official Mail Costs, Senate (re-scaled), FY2000 to FY2009
Millions of Dollars
1.0
0.9
Sep-07
0.8
Sep-09
Sep-05
0.7
Sep-03
0.6
Sep-00
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
FY
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Source: CRS analysis of U.S. Postal Service data
Source: CRS analysis of U.S. Postal Service data.
Author Contact Information
Matthew Eric Glassman
Analyst on the Congress
mglassman@crs.loc.gov, 7-3467
Congressional Research Service
9
period.
Footnotes
| 1.
|
Post Office Act, 12 Charles II (1660).
|
| 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 (November 8, 1775).
|
| 3.
|
U.S.C. §3210(3)(a).
|
| 4.
|
Official mail costs include franked mail only, and do not include the cost of stationery supplies or production costs.
|
| 5.
|
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.
|
| 6.
|
39 U.S.C. §3210(6)(a); U.S. Senate Handbook, Appendix I-D, p. I-116, available from Senate computers at http://webster/rules/rules.cfm?page=handbook; Senate Ethics Manual, p. 171, available at http://ethics.senate.gov/downloads/pdffiles/manual.pdf.
|
| 7.
|
See Common Cause, "Franks A Lot," press release, June 16, 1989, Common Cause Records, 1968-1991, Series 15, Box 293, Princeton University, Seeley G. Mudd Manuscript Library; Common Cause v. Bolger, 512 F. Supp. 26, 32 (D.D.C. 1980).
|
| 8.
|
For a historical overview of franking regulations, see CRS Report RL34274, Franking Privilege: Historical Development and Options for Change, by [author name scrubbed].
|
| 9.
|
S.Res. 500, 99th Cong., 2nd sess., agreed to in the Senate October 8, 1986.
|
| 10.
|
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, FY1991, P.L. 101-520, 104 Stat. 2254, 2279, Section 311.
|
| 11.
|
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, FY1993, P.L. 102-392, 106 Stat. 1703, 1722, Section 309.
|
| 12.
|
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, FY1995, P.L. 103-283, Stat. 1423, Sections. 5, 108.
|
| 13.
|
Monthly official mail costs data are not available prior to FY2000.
|
| 14.
|
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, FY1995, P.L. 103-283, Stat. 1423, Section 5.
|