Order Code RL34188
Congressional Official Mail Costs
Updated March 26, 2008
Matthew E. Glassman
Analyst on the Congress
Government and Finance Division

---

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 and Senate.
In FY2007, overall expenditures on official mail were $17,523,139. House
official mail costs ($14,215,689) were 81.1% of the total, whereas Senate mail costs
($3,307,450) were 18.9% of the total. In the House, 90.3% of mail costs were
Member mass mailings, whereas approximately 22.7% of Senate mail costs were
Member mass mailings. Seventy-eight percent of House offices and 28% of Senate
offices sent at least one mass mailing.
These expenditures continue a 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 captures the effect of a large spike in mail costs from December of the
previous calendar year.
The analysis demonstrates that between FY2000 and FY2007, higher official
mail costs in even-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 odd-numbered 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 franking expenditures
in both even-numbered and odd-numbered years (Table 2). 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.
This report will be updated annually. See also CRS Report RS22771,
Congressional Franking Privilege: Background and Current Legislation; CRS
Report RL34274, Franking Privilege: Historical Development and Options for
Change; and CRS Report RL34085, Election Year Restrictions on Mass Mailings by
Members of Congress: How H.R. 1614 / S. 936 / S. 1285 Would Change Current
Law.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Official Mail Costs, FY2005 to FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Official Mail Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Mass Mailing Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Election Year vs. Non-election Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Official Mail Costs, FY1954 - FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Increased Costs, FY1954-FY1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Costs Reduced, FY1988-FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Monthly Variation, FY2000 to FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
List of Figures
Figure 1. Monthly Official Mail Costs, October 2004 to December 2007 . . . . . . 3
Figure 2. Franked Mail Costs (FY1954-FY1977) and Official
Congressional Mail Costs (FY1978-FY2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Figure 3. Official Mail Costs, by Chamber, FY1978-FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Figure 4. Monthly Official Mail Costs, House, FY2000-FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Figure 5. Monthly Official Mail Costs, Senate, FY2000-FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Figure 6. Monthly Official Mail Costs, Senate (re-scaled),
FY2000 to FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
List of Tables
Table 1. Official Mail Costs, by Fiscal Year and Calendar Year, 2005 to 2007 . . 4
Table 2. Official Mail Costs, by Chamber, FY1978 to FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

---

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 17th century Great
Britain; the British House of Commons instituted it in 1660.1 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
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.3 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 almost a 70% reduction in even-
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 39 U.S.C. § 3210(3)(a).

---

CRS-2
numbered-year costs and over an 80% reduction in odd-numbered-year costs in the
last 20 years, from a high of $113.4 million and $89.5 million in FY1988 and
FY1989 to $34.3 million and $17.5 million in FY2006 and FY2007.
Official Mail Costs, FY2005 to FY2007
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 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.4
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 budget for the entire legislative branch for FY2007.5 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.
During FY2005, Congress spent $17.6 million on official mail. House official
mail costs ($14.4 million) were 81.8% of the total, whereas Senate official mail costs
($3.1 million) were 18.2% of the total.
Mass Mailing Costs. A mass mailing is defined as 500 or more substantially
similar pieces of unsolicited mail sent in the same session of Congress.6 In FY2007,
Congress spent $13.5 million on Member mass mailings. In the House, 90.3% of
official mail costs ($12.8 million) were Member mass mailings, whereas Senate
Member mass mailing costs ($0.7 million) were approximately 22.7% of Senate
official mail costs.7 Seventy-eight percent of House offices and 28% of Senate offices
sent at least one mass mailing.
In FY2006, Congress spent $28.4 million on Member mass mailings. In the
House, 89.4% of official mail costs ($27.5 million) were Member mass mailings,
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(a)(6)(E).
7 Senate Member mass mail percentages of total official mail costs are approximate because
reported Senate mass mailing figures include the cost of paper and operating expenses.

---

CRS-3
whereas Senate Member mass mailing costs ($0.9 million) were approximately
27.0% of Senate official mail costs. Eighty-six percent of House offices and 28% of
Senate offices sent at least one mass mailing.
In FY2005, Congress spent $13.0 million on Member mass mailings. In the
House, 84.7% of official mail costs ($12.2 million) were Member mass mailings,
whereas Senate Member mass mailing costs ($0.8 million) were approximately
27.1% of Senate official mail costs. Eighty-four percent of House offices and 31%
of Senate offices sent at least one mass mailing.
Election Year vs. Non-election Year. The higher official mail costs in
FY2006 than in FY2007 or FY2005 continues 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 2007.8
Figure 1. Monthly Official Mail Costs, October 2004 to December 2007
Millions of Dollars
8
FY05
FY06
FY07
FY08
December 2005
6
December 2007
August 2006
4
2
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
0
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
t-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
v
c
n
b
r-0
l-0
-05
-05
t-0
r-0
l-0
-06
-06
t-0
r-0
l-0
-07
-07
t-0
a
r-0
y
n
v
c
n
b
r-0
y
n
v
c
n
b
r-0
y
n
v
c
p
a
p
a
p
Oc
Ju
Ju
Ju
No
De
Ja
Fe
M
A
Ma
Ju
Aug
Sep
Oc
No
De
Ja
Fe
M
A
Ma
Ju
Aug
Sep
Oc
No
De
Ja
Fe
M
A
Ma
Ju
Aug
Sep
Oc
No
De
Source: CRS analysis of U.S. Postal Service data.
As shown in Figure 1, the lowest monthly costs occur in October ($0.3 million)
and November 2004 ($0.7 million), and September ($0.7 million), October ($0.4
million), and November 2006 ($0.5 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 and November 2006.
8 Additional monthly data is available in Figure 4, Figure 5, and Figure 6, pp. 8-9.

---

CRS-4
The higher monthly costs occurred in December 2005 ($5.8 million), December
2007 ($5.0 million), and the six months (March-August) prior to the pre-election
prohibited period for the 2006 general election.
Figure 1 demonstrates that the higher mail costs in FY2006 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.
Both of these increases are largely due to increased mass mailings by Members
of the House during those periods. House Member mass mailings made during the
first quarter of FY2006 (October-December) cost $8.8 million dollars, compared to
an average of $3.2 million over the four quarters of FY2007 and $3.0 million over
the four quarters of FY2005. House Member mass mailings made during the second
($5.1 million) and third ($6.8 million) quarters of FY2006 also were significantly
higher than the FY2007 or FY2007 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.9 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 in 2006 and 2007, measured by fiscal and
calendar year.
Table 1. Official Mail Costs, by Fiscal Year and Calendar Year,
2005 to 2007
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
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 CY2007 includes data from October-
December 2007.
9 See Common Cause, “Franks A Lot,” press release, June 16, 1989, Common Cause
Records, 1968-1991, Series 15, Box 293, Princeton University, Seely G. Mudd Manuscript
Library; Common Cause v. Bolger, 512 F. Supp. 26, 32 (D.D.C. 1980).

---

CRS-5
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 - FY2007
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 FY2007) in both current and constant 1954 dollars.
Figure 2. Franked Mail Costs (FY1954-FY1977) and Official
Congressional Mail Costs (FY1978-FY2007)
(current and constant 1954 dollars)
Millions of dollars
120
100
Current dollars
80
60
40
Constant dollars
20
0
1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006
FY
--------- Franked Mail Costs Official Mail Costs
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 FY2007. 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

---

CRS-6
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 increasing from
8 cents in FY1972 to 25 cents by FY1988. Standard mail (formerly third-class) rates
increased from 5 cents in FY1972 to 10 cents in FY1988.
Costs Reduced, FY1988-FY2007. Official congressional mail costs have
fallen significantly in the past 20 years. Even-numbered-year franking expenditures
have been reduced by almost 70% from $113.4 million in FY1988 to $34.3 million
in F2006. Odd-numbered-year franking expenditures have been reduced by over 80%
from $89.5 million in FY1989 to $17.5 million in FY2007. Figure 3 depicts in
graphic form changes in official mail costs, by chamber, between FY1978 and
FY2007 (the same data is available in Table 2).
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.10 In
1986, the Senate established a franking allowance for each Senator and for the first
time disclosed individual Member mail costs.11 In 1990, the House established a
separate franking allowance for its Members and required public disclosure of
individual mail costs.12
Figure 3. Official Mail Costs, by Chamber, FY1978-FY2007
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
FY
Source: CRS analysis of U.S. Postal Service data.
10 For a historical overview of franking regulations, see CRS Report RL34274, Franking
Privilege: Historical Development and Options for Change, by Matthew E. Glassman.
11 S.Res. 500, 99th Cong., 2nd sess., agreed to in the Senate Oct. 8, 1986.
12 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, FY1991, P.L. 101-520, 104 Stat. 2254, 2279, sec.
311.

---

CRS-7
Tighter restrictions were also placed on Member mass mailings. Since October
1992, Members have been prohibited from sending mass mailings outside their
districts.13 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.14
Table 2. Official Mail Costs, by Chamber, FY1978 to FY2007
(in current dollars)a
Fiscal Year
House
Senate
Total
1978
$35,109,000
$13,817,000
$48,926,000
1979
27,729,087
15,213,555
42,942,642
1980
43,421,682
18,484,220
61,905,902
1981
29,686,213
24,175,800
53,862,013
1982
59,894,236
40,143,989
100,038,225
1983
40,306,625
32,126,335
72,432,960
1984
67,348,392
43,608,944
110,957,336
1985
45,308,146
39,852,648
85,160,794
1986
60,400,595
35,538,040
95,938,635
1987
44,200,958
19,423,954
63,624,912
1988
77,852,082
35,507,565
113,359,647
1989
57,220,627
32,283,506
89,504,133
1990
72,942,800
15,001,842
87,944,642
1991
31,343,891
11,744,034
43,087,925
1992
54,339,650
17,422,313
71,761,963
1993
24,619,471
10,581,895
35,201,366
1994
42,372,044
10,647,268
53,019,312
1995
24,553,291
5,480,523
30,033,814
1996
28,990,765
5,096,346
34,087,111
1997
15,371,039
3,417,328
18,788,367
1998
27,726,139
3,629,446
31,355,585
1999
14,917,510
3,117,940
18,095,450
2000
27,020,352
3,308,242
30,328,594
2001
13,880,914
2,886,983
16,747,967
2002
28,145,897
2,856,051
31,001,948
2003
15,965,517
3,323,378
19,288,895
2004
30,040,867
3,631,452
33,672,319
13 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, FY1993, P.L. 102-292, 106 Stat. 1703, 1722, sec.
309.
14 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, FY1995, P.L. 103-283, Stat. 1423, secs. 5, 108.

---

CRS-8
Fiscal Year
House
Senate
Total
2005
14,440,380
3,149,771
17,590,151
2006
30,706,581
3,632,080
34,338,661
2007
14,215,689
3,307,450
17,523,140
Total
$1,100,070,440
$462,409,898
$1,562,520,409
Source: CRS calculations based on U.S. Postal Service data.
a. Costs are only for the cost of official (franked) mail; they do not include the cost of stationery or
other supplies.
Monthly Variation, FY2000 to FY2007. Official mail costs in both the
House and Senate have shown significant monthly variation. Figure 4 and Figure 5
plot monthly official mail costs for the House of Representatives and Senate from
FY2000 to FY2007.15
Figure 4. Monthly Official Mail Costs, House,
FY2000-FY2007
Millions of Dollars
8.0
7.0
Dec-03
Dec-01
6.0
Dec-99
Dec-05
5.0
Dec-07
Aug-02
Jul-04
Aug-06
4.0
Aug-00
3.0
2.0
1.0
Sep-00
Oct-02
Oct-04
Oct-06
0.0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
FY
Source: CRS analysis of U.S. Postal Service data.
15 Monthly official mail costs data are not available prior to FY2000.

---

CRS-9
Figure 5. Monthly Official Mail Costs, Senate,
FY2000-FY2007
Millions of Dollars
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
Sep-07
1.0
Sep-05
Sep-03
Sep-00
0.0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
FY
Source: CRS analysis of U.S. Postal Service data.
Figure 4 demonstrates that the two spikes in official mail costs found in
FY2006 and FY2007 (as described in Figure 1) are regular trends. From FY2000 to
FY2007, 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, plotted on the same scale as Figure 4, 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.16
Figure 6 provides a re-scaled view of monthly Senate official mail costs. The
pattern in costs in the Senate are similar to the House of Representatives, but not as
strong. Costs peak annually in September, and are higher in the months just prior to
the pre-election prohibited period.
16 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, FY1995, P.L. 103-283, Stat. 1423, sec. 5.

---

CRS-10
Figure 6. Monthly Official Mail Costs, Senate (re-scaled),
FY2000 to FY2007
Millions of Dollars
1.0
0.9
Sep-07
0.8
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
Source: CRS analysis of U.S. Postal Service data.

---