Title 36 Charters: The History and Evolution of September 8, 2022
Congressional Practices
Henry B. Hogue
Title 36 of the United States Code includes a codification of statutes of federal incorporation, or
Specialist in American
charters, for more than 90 private or quasi-governmental nonprofit organizations.
National Government

Beginning with the Bank of the United States in 1791, Congress has incorporated both public and
private organizations. Historically, it incorporated for-profit and nonprofit organizations within
For a copy of the full report,
the District of Columbia as part of its constitutional role in the governance of that jurisdiction. In
please call 7-5700 or visit
1901, Congress vested incorporation authority in the District government for organizations
www.crs.gov.
located within District bounds, obviating the need for Congress to continue to perform this
function.
Many national, private, nonprofit groups—even some that had already been incorporated at the state level or by the District—
continued to seek charters from Congress after 1901. Congress granted charters to a variety of such groups with charitable,
patriotic, fraternal, cultural, social, educational, and historical missions. These charters are generally codified in Title 36.
These groups have sometimes perceived that the congressional recognition implied by a Title 36 charter would confer a
special status that might attract members and donors. A Title 36 charter does not, per se, confer special rights or privileges
under federal law. In the past, Veterans Administration (VA) rules gave chartered veterans’ groups special recognition in the
presentation of veterans’ claims before the agency, but this is no longer the case.
Congress has also chartered quasi-governmental independent nonprofit corporations for national or regional public policy
purposes, many with connections to federal government agencies. Some of these charters have been classified in Title 36,
while others have been classified in other sections of the United States Code.
Members of the Judiciary Committees in the House and Senate, to which charter bills have most often been referred, have
expressed concern about the volume of organizations seeking charters and the capacity of these committees to continuously
oversee congressionally chartered organizations. Periodically, the committees have tried to define the purpose of, and
standards for, such charters. At times they have adopted, formally or informally, chartering standards. The committees
sought, and received, auditing assistance from GAO as part of their oversight efforts. The committees also considered, but
did not report, legislation that would have vested the authority to grant and oversee charters in the Department of Justice.
At times, the committees have determined that the congressional recognition that charters conferred on meritorious groups
was outweighed by committee resource costs and the potential for unsupervised chartered groups to engage in activities that
might harm the public and reflect poorly on Congress. On several occasions, they adopted years-long formal or informal
moratoria on committee consideration of new ones.
Between 1989 and 2018, the House Judiciary Committee subcommittee of jurisdiction adopted a moratorium on
consideration of new charters. During the first 22 years of the moratorium, at least eight new charters were enacted, usually
through processes that did not require the subcommittee’s support. Title 36 charter legislation has not been a matter of active
legislative debate during recent Congresses, and none was enacted from 2011 through 2021.
Should the committees resume former chartering practices, they might consider the purpose and value of Title 36 charters;
the standards a group must meet; how the committees would assess whether a group has met these standards; whether the
same committee practices should be used to consider charter bills for quasi-government organizations as for private,
nonprofit organizations; and the role of the committees in the oversight of chartered organizations. Congress might consider
whether the House and Senate Judiciary Committees should continue to have jurisdiction over the granting and oversight of
Title 36 charters or whether charters should be granted and overseen according to their subject matter.
Congressional Research Service

Title 36 Charters: The History and Evolution of Congressional Practices

In 1926, Congress established the United States Code as an authoritative compilation and
codification of the permanent federal laws then in force. Title 36 of this publication, “Patriotic
Societies and Observances,” included previously enacted chartering statutes for eight
organizations.1 Over the succeeding decades, statutes were added to, and occasionally removed
from, Title 36, and it now includes the charters of more than 90 organizations.2 Although the title
continues to include many private, nonprofit corporations that appear to be of a patriotic character
or national in scope, it also includes nonprofit corporations with diverse purposes and differing
relationships with federal government agencies.
Throughout the 20th century, Congress periodically grappled with defining the authority, purpose,
and standards for the congressional charters that came to be grouped in Title 36. Some Members
expressed doubt about the constitutionality of these charters. Others voiced concern about the
apparent congressional sanctioning of certain organizations over others of seemingly equal merit.
Members also questioned whether Congress had the resources to investigate the validity of
groups seeking this status and to monitor chartered corporations on an ongoing basis. In one
effort to address these concerns, the House subcommittee of jurisdiction in this area repeatedly
adopted a moratorium on consideration of new charters between 1989 and 2018.3 In taking this
action, the subcommittee cited the implied federal government support for groups receiving such
charters, a shortage of subcommittee resources for appropriate oversight of chartered groups, and
no apparent “valid purpose” for Title 36 charters.
Title 36 charters have not been a matter of active legislative debate during recent Congresses.
Notwithstanding the House subcommittee moratorium, however, groups continued to seek Title
36 charters, and Members have continued to introduce legislation on behalf of those they support.
Such legislation has sometimes been enacted, usually through processes that did not require the
subcommittee’s support. Consequently, Member offices, the House and Senate committees of
jurisdiction, and other congressional committees periodically face decisions about individual
charter requests that raise questions about the history of Title 36 charters and related
congressional practices.
This report first traces the evolution of Title 36 charters as a distinct group of statutes that
establish quasi-governmental and private organizations. It then describes charter establishment
and oversight issues that began to arise early in the 20th century and subsequent congressional
efforts to set standards and monitoring mechanisms for such groups. Following this, the report
discusses an unsuccessful effort in the late 1980s to delegate chartering responsibilities to the
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the subsequent moratorium on the consideration of charters.
Potential benefits and drawbacks of such charters for groups and for Congress are also identified.
The report then discusses the legislative processes generally used for establishing new statutory
Title 36 charters and amending existing ones. The report ends with concluding observations.

1 The Code of the Laws of the United States of America of a General and Permanent Character in Force December 7,
1925, Title 36 (Washington: GPO, 1926).
2 36 U.S.C. Subtitle II, Part B.
3 As discussed further below, it appears that a similar posture was formally adopted by the Senate Judiciary Committee
and informally adopted by the House Judiciary Committee during the 1920s.
Congressional Research Service

1

Title 36 Charters: The History and Evolution of Congressional Practices

Origins and Evolution of Congressional Charters
In the United States, the states have generally had the authority over the creation and oversight of
corporate entities within their boundaries. Beginning with the Bank of the United States in 1791,4
however, Congress has also incorporated both public and private organizations.5 Most such
congressional charters6 fall into one of three categories: corporations organized in the District of
Columbia, corporations organized to carry out some regional or national public purpose, and
nonprofit corporations at the national level.
District of Columbia-Based Corporations
Congress issued charters to organizations located within the District, mostly during the 19th
century, as part of its role in the governance of that jurisdiction.7 When the District became the
seat of the federal government in 1790, it had neither a general incorporation law nor a legislature
that could grant charters. Congress, instead, assumed responsibility for incorporation within the
District.8 Congressionally chartered District-based organizations included public entities, such as
the City of Washington,9 as well as private entities, such as the Bank of Washington;10 the
Washington, Alexandria, and George Town Steam Packet Company;11 and the Georgetown
Gaslight Company.12 Congress also chartered some District-based charitable organizations, such
as the Washington City Orphan Asylum.13 The first comprehensive legal code for the District,
enacted in 1901, vested incorporation authority in the District’s commissioner-led government.14

4 The enabling act was enacted during the third session of the first Congress. Act of February 25, 1791, ch. 10, §3, 1
Stat. 192.
5 A list of such charters through 1944 may be found in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Establishing
and Effectuating a Policy with Respect to the Creation or Chartering of Certain Corporations by Act of Congress,
report to accompany S. 503, 80th Cong., 1st sess., February 19, 1947, S.Rept. 80-30 (Washington: GPO, 1947), pp. 4-
13.
6 As used in this report, a congressional or federal charter is a federal statute that establishes a corporation. Such a
charter typically provides the following characteristics for the corporation: official name; purpose(s); duration of
existence; governance structure (e.g., executives, board members); powers of the corporation; and federal oversight
powers. Beyond conferring the powers needed to achieve its statutorily assigned goal, a charter usually provides a
corporation with a set of standard operational powers such as the power to sue and be sued; to contract and be
contracted with; and to acquire, hold, and convey property. Many of the charters in Title 36 supplement, by reference, a
group’s pre-existing state-level charter.
7 U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, clause 17, provides that Congress shall have the power “To exercise exclusive
Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of
particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to
exercise Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be,
for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.”
8 In 1830, the House Committee for the District of Columbia reported that, since the 1801 statutory establishment of
jurisdictional units within the district, “numerous laws have been passed by Congress, related to city charters, public
buildings, bank and bridge companies, to the militia, to the incorporation of various societies and institutions, and to
other local matters.” U.S. Congress, House Committee for the District of Columbia, Laws for the District of Columbia,
21st Cong., 1st sess., March 3, 1830, H.Rept. 31-269 (Washington: GPO, 1830), p. 7.
9 Act of May 3, 1802, 2 Stat. 195-197.
10 Act of February 15, 1811, 2 Stat. 625-628.
11 Act of March 3, 1829, 6 Stat. 398-400.
12 Act of July 20, 1854, 10 Stat. 786-788.
13 Act of May 24, 1828, ch. 88, §2, 6 Stat. 381.
14 Chap. 854, Act to establish a code of law for the District of Columbia, Chapter 18, Corporations; 31 Stat. 1189, at
1280. For a description of the formation of the DC Code, see “Historical,” District of Columbia Code, Annotated, vol. 1
Congressional Research Service

2

Title 36 Charters: The History and Evolution of Congressional Practices

This seemingly relieved Congress of this duty, although some viewed early implementation of
this authority as problematic.15
Corporations with Quasi-Governmental Functions
Congress has also chartered quasi-governmental independent nonprofit corporations for national
or regional public policy purposes, such as the National Institute of Building Sciences16 and the
National Center for Research in Advanced Information and Digital Technologies.17 Unlike private
corporations, such entities are statutorily mandated to carry out functions that are thought to be in
the public interest. For example, the 1863 congressional charter of the National Academy of
Sciences stipulated that
the academy shall, whenever called upon by any department of the Government,
investigate, examine, experiment, and report upon any subject of science or art, the actual
expense of such investigations, examinations, experiments, and reports, to be paid from
appropriations which may be made for the purpose, but the academy shall receive no
compensation whatever for any services to the Government of the United States.18

(Washington: GPO 1973), p. XVII. For a discussion of the early evolution of DC governance, see Luis M. Acosta,
“The Legal History of the District of Columbia Prior to Home Rule: A Bibliographic Essay,” Legal Reference Services
Quarterly, vol. 23, no. 4 (2004), pp. 43-74.
15 For example, in a 1905 message to Congress, President Theodore Roosevelt noted that “the attention of Congress has
been drawn to the defects of the law authorizing the formation of corporations in the District of Columbia.” U.S.
Congress, Senate Committee on the District of Columbia, Formation of Corporations in the District of Columbia,
Message from the President of the United States inviting the attention of Congress to certain defects in the law which
authorizes the formation of corporations in the District of Columbia, 58th Cong., 3rd sess., January 30, 1905, S.Doc. 58-
126 (Washington: GPO, 1905).
Within a month of this message, a Member expressed similar concern during House floor debate on legislation to grant
a charter:
In 1901 we passed a general law authorizing the formation of corporations for the District of
Columbia, and we all know the extent to which it has been carried and abused, and that the
President in a special message recently called the attention of Congress to the fact. I hold in my
hand an advertising letter head of one of these corporations claiming to be incorporated by the act
of Congress of March 3, 1901, which reads:
“American Corporation Company, incorporated under act of Congress approved March 3, 1901.
Capital, $2,500,000. 32 Broadway, N.Y. Railroads and municipal enterprises financed. Stocks and
bonds underwritten and guaranteed. Miscellaneous securities negotiated and purchased. Bank
stocks, commercial paper, etc.”
In other words, under the general law passed in 1901, authorizing corporations and bodies politic in
the District of Columbia, we have now all over the United States corporations like this, which are
nothing more than bucket shops-companies engaged in speculation.
Representative Charles L. Bartlett, “American Academy, Rome,” House debate, Congressional Record, vol. 39, part 4
(February 28, 1905), p. 3668.
16 12 U.S.C. §1701j-2. Congress established the National Institute of Building Sciences in 1974 when it “recognized the
need for an organization to serve as an interface between government and the private sector—one that serves as a
resource to those who plan, design, procure, construct, use, operate, maintain, renovate, and retire physical facilities”
(https://nibs.org/about).
17 20 U.S.C. §9631. Although statutorily named the National Center for Research in Advanced Information and Digital
Technologies, this entity was renamed as “Digital Promise.” See https://digitalpromise.org/about/our-history/. Digital
Promise’s statutory purpose is “to support a comprehensive research and development program to harness the
increasing capacity of advanced information and digital technologies to improve all levels of learning and education,
formal and informal, in order to provide Americans with the knowledge and skills needed to compete in the global
economy” (20 U.S.C. §9631(b)).
18 Act of March 3, 1863, ch. 111, §3, 12 Stat. 806-807. The statute was later included as part of Title 36, and this
Congressional Research Service

3

Title 36 Charters: The History and Evolution of Congressional Practices

Notwithstanding their public interest missions, these organizations do not have a federal
government agency’s authority to direct or regulate private behavior or to otherwise enforce the
law.
Charters for Public Policy Purposes
The quasi-governmental organizations discussed here are statutorily established to carry out functions specified in
the statute. For example, the statute establishing the National Institute of Building Sciences provides, “The
Institute shall exercise its functions and responsibilities in four general areas, relating to building regulations, as
follows: (A) Development, promulgation, and maintenance of nationally recognized performance criteria,
standards, and other technical provisions for maintenance of life, safety, health, and public welfare suitable for
adoption by building regulating jurisdictions and agencies, including test methods and other evaluative techniques
relating to building systems, subsystems, components, products, and materials with due regard for consumer
problems. (B) Evaluation and prequalification of existing and new building technology in accordance with
subparagraph (A). (C) Conduct of needed investigations in direct support of subparagraphs (A) and (B). (D)
Assembly, storage, and dissemination of technical data and other information directly related to subparagraphs
(A), (B), and (C)” (12 U.S.C. §1701j–2(e.). In contrast, the charter for the Boys and Girls Clubs of America states
that the group’s general purposes are “to promote the health, social, educational, vocational, and character
development of youth throughout the United States [and] to receive, invest, and disburse funds and to hold
property for the purposes of the corporation” (36 U.S.C. §31103).
National Nonprofits
As the seat of the national government, the District has been the home of many nonprofit
organizations with purposes that are national in scope but not of a national or regional public
policy nature. Congress has provided charters for a variety of nonprofits, including those with
charitable, patriotic, cultural, social, educational, and historical missions. In a few cases these
charters have served as the original act of incorporation of the entity. In most instances, however,
organizations already incorporated at the state level have sought and received a supplementary
congressional charter. One early example is the Columbian Institute for the Promotion of the Arts
and Sciences,19 an organization that some have seen as an antecedent of the Smithsonian
Institution, in spirit if not in accomplishments.20 Other organizations that received congressional
charters include, for example, Howard University,21 the American Historical Association,22 the
Society of American Florists and Ornamental Horticulturalists,23 and the National Education
Association of the United States.24
Adoption of United States Code, Including Title 36
In 1926, Congress adopted the United States Code as a consolidation and codification of most
statutes then in effect.25 Title 36 of this code, entitled “Patriotic Societies and Observances,” was
a compilation of previously enacted statutes that chartered a subset of eight national nonprofit

provision may be found at 36 U.S.C. §150303.
19 Act of April 20, 1818, ch. 125, 12 Stat. 214-215.
20 Richard Rathbun, The Columbian Institute for the Promotion of Arts and Sciences (Washington: GPO, 1917).
21 Act of March 2, 1867, ch. 162, 14 Stat. 438-439.
22 Act of January 4, 1889, ch. 20, 25 Stat. 640.
23 Act of March 3, 1901, ch. 876, 31 Stat. 1453-1454.
24 Act of June 30, 1906, ch. 3929, 34 Stat. 804-808.
25 P.L. 69-440; 44 Stat. 1.
Congressional Research Service

4

Title 36 Charters: The History and Evolution of Congressional Practices

organizations. The missions of seven of these were related to war and its aftermath, and all but
one were established as nonprofit corporations:26
1. American National Red Cross (chartered in 1900),
2. Boy Scouts of America (1916),
3. American Legion (1919),
4. Belleau Wood Memorial Association (1923),
5. Grand Army of the Republic (1924),
6. United States Blind Veterans of World War (1924),
7. American War Mothers (1925), and
8. American Battle Monuments Commission (1923).27
In addition to these charters, two other provisions were included that pertained to recognition of
Mother’s Day.28 Title 36 did not include all congressional charters for private organizations that
had previously been enacted and were then in effect.29
Title 36 did not include all statutes then in effect that had conferred congressional charters. Nor
does Title 36 presently include all statutes now in effect that have conferred congressional
charters.
Title 36 Organizations: Coherence and Diversity
During the 95 or more years since this initial edition of Title 36 was issued, charters were added
and, less frequently, removed. By 1958, Title 36 included charters for more than 40 national
organizations.30 Although most of the organizations appear to have had missions pertaining to
wars and their aftermath, as had been the case in 1926, the 1958 edition of Title 36 included a
broader array of national organizations overall, including, for example, the National Safety
Council, the National Music Council, Big Brothers of America, the Conference of State Societies,
Future Farmers of America, and the United States Olympic Association.31 This diversity of
missions prompted one observer to write, in 1957, “Judging by the variation in the declared
purposes and principal powers and duties of these different corporations, the conception of
‘Patriotic Societies’ of Title 36, is both broad and vague.”32
Notwithstanding this characterization, this scholar noted the cohesion of Title 36 corporations
relative to other incorporated entities established by Congress:
These “patriotic societies” are readily distinguished in a variety of particulars from another
group of corporations enacted by the Congress to carry on sundry types of business,
commerce and finance. The latter corporations are frequently referred to as government

26 Only the Boy Scouts of America did not have a connection to war or its aftermath. The American Battle Monuments
Commission was the only entity included in Title 36 in 1926 that was not organized in corporate form.
27 The Code of the Laws of the United States of America of a General and Permanent Character in Force December 7,
1925, Title 36 (Washington: GPO, 1926), §§1-133.
28 Ibid., §§141 and 142.
29 At least three other national organizations that had been statutorily established in the 19th century were not included
in the initial edition of Title 36 but were later added to the title: the National Academy of Sciences (1863), the
American History Association (1889), and the National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution (1896).
30 United States Code, 1958 Edition, vol. 7, Title 36 (Washington: GPO, 1959).
31 Ibid.
32 Wesley A. Sturges, “The Legal Status of the Red Cross,” Michigan Law Review, vol. 56, no. 1 (November 1957), p.
22.
Congressional Research Service

5

Title 36 Charters: The History and Evolution of Congressional Practices

business corporations. They are fashioned more or less like corresponding private
corporations with capital structures, capital stock issues and authorization to engage in
designated lines of enterprise for profit (or at least break-even returns) to the corporation.
Generally the United States is the sole or principal stockholder….
Unlike the business corporations enacted by the Congress, its “patriotic societies” are
created as membership corporations. The acts creating these societies follow a common
pattern. A group of persons is named therein and the statute declares that they, their
associates and successors, “are created a body corporate and politic.” …
None of the acts creating these societies contemplates the carrying on of any commercial
enterprise for profit to the incorporators or members; some of the enactments do, some do
not, expressly disclaim such purpose. According to some of the acts, membership is limited
to designated classes of persons; this is true, for example, of the veterans’ organizations.
Some, like the [Daughters of the American Revolution], have no statement of membership
qualifications or limitations.33
Title 36 organizations are now catalogued in subtitle II, “Patriotic and National Organizations.”34
The subtitle includes the charters of more than 90 national organizations. About half of these are
private, nonprofit corporations that appear to have missions related to the military or veterans,
such as the Naval Sea Cadet Corps,35 the Gold Star Wives of America,36 the Jewish War Veterans
of the United States of America,37 and the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States.38 Other
nonprofit corporations listed in the subtitle have differing relationships with federal government
agencies and diverse purposes, including, for example, the following:
 Federal-government-affiliated organizations, such as the National Film
Preservation Foundation and the National Recording Preservation Foundation,
which is affiliated with the Library of Congress;39 the Corporation for the
Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety, which is affiliated with the U.S.
Army;40 the National Academy of Sciences;41 and Former Members of
Congress.42

33 Sturges, “The Legal Status of the Red Cross,” pp. 22-23.
34 36 U.S.C. Subtitle II, Part B. Title 36 as a whole is entitled “Patriotic and National Observances, Ceremonies, and
Organizations.” As this name would suggest, other parts of the title cover statutes pertaining to related observances and
ceremonies. These provisions, however, are generally outside the scope of this report. In 1998, P.L. 105-225 (112 Stat.
1253) enacted Title 36 as positive law. Prior to this enactment, Title 36 had been a non-positive law title of the United
States Code. That is, it was essentially “an editorial compilation of Federal statutes.” As a positive law title, Title 36 is
now an enacted statute itself. This distinction might sometimes have implications in legal contexts that are beyond the
scope of this report. For more, see U.S. House of Representatives, Office of the Law Revision Counsel, “United States
Code: Positive Law Codification,” https://uscode.house.gov/codification/legislation.shtml.
35 36 U.S.C. Ch. 1541.
36 36 U.S.C. Ch. 805.
37 36 U.S.C. Ch. 1101.
38 36 U.S.C. Ch. 2301.
39 36 U.S.C. Ch. 1517 and 36 U.S.C. Ch. 1524.
40 36 U.S.C. Ch. 407.
41 36 U.S.C. Ch. 1503.
42 36 U.S.C. Ch. 703.
Congressional Research Service

6

Title 36 Charters: The History and Evolution of Congressional Practices

 Youth-oriented organizations, such as Big Brothers-Big Sisters of America,43 Boy
Scouts of America,44 Girl Scouts of the United States of America,45 and Little
League Baseball, Incorporated.46
 Professional or avocational associations, such as the American Academy of Arts
and Letters,47 the Society of American Florists and Ornamental Horticulturists,48
the American Symphony Orchestra League, 49 and the National Ski Patrol
System, Incorporated.50
 National history or historical-event-related groups, such as the National Society
of the Daughters of the American Revolution,51 the American Historical
Association,52 the Theodore Roosevelt Association,53 and the United States
Capitol Historical Society.54
 Other organizations of national purpose, such as the United States Olympic and
Paralympic Committee,55 the National Academy of Public Administration,56 and
the National Conference on Citizenship.57
Evolving Chartering and Oversight Issues
The emergence of issues concerning congressional chartering and oversight of private, nonprofit
organizations predated the classification of these charters into Title 36. Questions about the
constitutional authority of Congress to incorporate any private entity were considered at the
nation’s founding, and the extent of such authority continued to be debated in Congress well into
the 20th century. Some Members have also raised concerns about the purposes and standards for
granting such charters. As the number of Title 36 organizations has grown, some Members have
also expressed doubt that congressional committees have the capacity to oversee their
administrative practices and activities.
Even as these concerns have sometimes led congressional committees of jurisdiction to suspend
or attempt to discontinue consideration of charter legislation, organizations have continued to
seek congressional charters. Although the tangible benefits of a congressional charter are few,
some national nonprofit groups have perceived that the prestige associated with this distinction
might improve their standing, expand their membership rolls, and increase their fundraising. In

43 36 U.S.C. Ch. 301.
44 36 U.S.C. Ch. 309.
45 36 U.S.C. Ch. 803.
46 36 U.S.C. Ch. 1305.
47 36 U.S.C. Ch. 203.
48 36 U.S.C. Ch. 2001.
49 36 U.S.C. Ch. 223.
50 36 U.S.C. Ch. 1527.
51 36 U.S.C. Ch. 1531.
52 36 U.S.C. Ch. 213.
53 36 U.S.C. Ch. 2101.
54 36 U.S.C. Ch. 2203.
55 36 U.S.C. Ch. 2205.
56 36 U.S.C. Ch. 1501.
57 36 U.S.C. Ch. 1507.
Congressional Research Service

7

Title 36 Charters: The History and Evolution of Congressional Practices

some cases, organizations have sought charters for more specific benefits, such as official
recognition by the Department of Veterans Affairs or special treatment by the state in which the
group was originally incorporated, both discussed below.58
Early Concern: Constitutional Authority
Some of the earliest questions about congressional chartering pertained to Congress’s powers
under the Constitution. As the 1st Congress (1789-1791) considered, and passed, legislation to
establish a Bank of the United States in 1791, the Jeffersonians and the Federalists, led by
Alexander Hamilton, vigorously debated the question of whether Congress had the constitutional
authority to incorporate.59 After the first charter expired, Congress chartered a second Bank of the
United States in 1816. This charter was challenged in federal court, and the Supreme Court
upheld its constitutionality in McMulloch v. Maryland.60 Congressional practice during the 1800s
also bolstered the position that Congress did have this power, at least with regard to incorporation
of private entities that would carry out certain government functions.61
At the turn of the 20th century, some in Congress were not persuaded that, whatever incorporation
authority Congress might have, it extended to private organizations with no government purpose.
In 1905, one Member raised this issue in the context of House floor debate on a bill to incorporate
the American Academy in Rome:
When this bill was before the House on a former occasion, believing as I then did, and
believing as I now do, that the Congress of the United States ought not to exercise, and in
fact has not the constitutional power to exercise, the power to grant indiscriminately
charters except in the jurisdiction over which the Congress has sole jurisdiction, the District
of Columbia and the Territories. ...
In a number of cases the court has declared that Congress has no general power to grant
charters to corporations, and can only grant them where the Congress at the same time
confers upon the corporation some governmental function, such as issuing money, building
railroads that are to be equipped and used as great public highways, or in the transportation
of mail for the Government or the transportation of its armies. Even that for a while was
disputed until it was decided, in the famous case of McCulloch v. Maryland, that Congress
could incorporate the United States Bank.62
At the conclusion of his remarks, the Member dropped his objection to the bill under debate,
differentiating from the charters he objected to from “the incorporation of these very worthy and
distinguished gentlemen into a body politic, for the laudable and charitable purposes stated in the
bill.” Notwithstanding his acquiescence in this case, he noted that this instance would not “be
binding upon me as a precedent in the future when other bills are sought to be passed like it.”63
These remarks perhaps reflect the dilemma sometimes faced by Members with regard to Title 36
charters: They might be opposed to the general practice, but they support a specific organization
whose charter is at hand.

58 See “Role of Charters in Federal Recognition of Veterans’ Organizations” and “Executive Branch Study: Legal
Benefits of Congressional Charters.”
59 Richard G. Handler and Thomas F. Liotti, “An Historical Survey of Federal Incorporation,” Delaware Journal of
Corporate Law, vol. 1, no. 2 (1976), pp. 370-390.
60 Handler and Liotti, “An Historical Survey of Federal Incorporation,” pp. 374-375.
61 Handler and Liotti, “An Historical Survey of Federal Incorporation,” pp. 374-375.
62 Bartlett, “American Academy, Rome,” p. 3668.
63 Bartlett, “American Academy, Rome,” p. 3668.
Congressional Research Service

8

Title 36 Charters: The History and Evolution of Congressional Practices

Charter Volume and Congressional “Seal of Approval”
Incorporation of nonprofit organizations such as those listed in Title 36 has generally been within
the jurisdiction of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees,64 and much of the discussion and
debate about the chartering and oversight of these entities has occurred within these two
committees. For example, in the context of a 1918 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on a bill
to charter an American Committee for Relief in the Near East, a Senator raised the following
questions:
My view has been that the Congress has no power to give a charter of this character or a
charter of any character except to some governmental agency or instrumentality like the
Emergency Fleet Corporation, which is building vessels for the Government, or this new
War Finance Corporation, which is organized to perform a distinctly governmental
function. A corporation that does not perform a distinctly governmental function, in my
opinion may not be created by Congress. I do not think that this comes within the category
of distinctly governmental purposes….
[T]here are very many corporations that are knocking at the doors of Congress for charters.
They seem to think—and in that, I am afraid, they may be somewhat mistaken—that if they
can get a charter from the Federal government it is going to give them a prestige and
standing that will enable them to get more money to carry on their charitable and
philanthropic purposes than if they continue their activities as a corporation under a State
or as a voluntary association, and that very fact that they think they will get some
advantages by a Federal charter will give them prestige and standing is one reason why I
should be opposed to it.65
Concern about the volume of charter requests and the perception that the prestige of a
congressional charter could enhance fundraising continued to arise as additional groups of
veterans and their supporters sought this status after the First World War. During a 1924 joint
hearing of the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary regarding a bill to incorporate the
National American War Mothers, one Member appeared to bristle at the assertion by one of the
group’s leaders that a congressional charter would give the group public recognition that would
yield more public support. Following a brief exchange with the witness on what was meant by
support, the Member countered:
That is the trouble…. We are receiving many requests for charters from all kinds of
organizations and associations, and the committee has heretofore been very much
disinclined to grant these charters unless they can serve some good purpose. I mean by that
some purpose pertaining to the country as a whole. If by Congress granting this charter it
will serve a good purpose, we have favored it; but we have not, speaking for myself, been
in favor of granting these charters generally. It is a bad thing, in my opinion, and I think
we should be told just how you are going to help the country generally; how it is going to
be of service to the country generally.66

64 Chartering legislation has sometimes been referred to, and reported by, other committees, as well. See, for example,
referral practices discussed under “Title 36 Chartering Practices Following the 1965 Veto,” below.
65 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Government Incorporation of American Committee for Relief in
the Near East, hearing on S. 4785, 65th Cong., 2nd sess., January 1, 1918, (unpublished hearing transcript accessed
through ProQuest Congressional), p. 9.
66 U.S. Congress, Joint Committees on the Judiciary, To Incorporate the American War Mothers, hearing on H.R. 8980
and H.R. 9095, 68th Cong., 1st sess., May 6, 1924 (Washington: GPO, 1924), pp. 4-5. The question of Congress’s
constitutional authority to charter this organization was not explicitly raised during this hearing. As reflected in this
excerpt, some Members instead raised the question of whether the group would serve a beneficial national purpose.
Charter supporters repeatedly noted the linkage of the group’s purposes with the then-recently concluded World War.
Congressional Research Service

9

Title 36 Charters: The History and Evolution of Congressional Practices

Committee Resistance to Charters
By 1926—the year the United States Code was first issued—it appears that the two judiciary
committees had largely stopped reporting congressional charter bills. In the course of a
subcommittee hearing in the House, one Member noted that “the Senate Judiciary Committee has
passed a resolution declaring it to be the policy of the committee not to report favorably on any
Federal charters, unless it is necessary for the organization seeking the charter to obtain the
Federal charter in order to carry out” governmental functions.67 The subcommittee chair added
that the resolution “is largely the policy of this committee, too.”68 These policies—formal or
informal—appear to have continued through the following Congresses.69 The committees made
certain exceptions during the two decades that followed, typically noting in committee reports the
reason for doing so.70
Role of Charters in Federal Recognition of Veterans’ Organizations
Some groups have perceived that the prestige of a congressional charter could provide an edge in
the competition for membership and fundraising. Following the end of World War II, the
Veterans’ Administration (VA) provided veterans’ service organizations (VSOs) with an
additional incentive for seeking a congressional charter by linking charters with the right to
represent veterans seeking benefits.71 Some groups saw such representational services as an

67 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee No. III, To Incorporate the American Citizenship
Foundation, hearing on H.R. 11319, 69th Cong., 1st sess., May 21, 1926 (Washington: GPO, 1926), p. 3.
68 Ibid., p. 4.
69 See, for example, remarks of the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee during a hearing on a bill to
incorporate the Disabled American Veterans of the World War: “The heart of this question … lies in the fact that we
have practically abandoned granting these charters. I believe that for eight years there has not been one granted…. It
means, if we are to grant your request, receding from a policy that has been in operation for a number of years … that
we have to sit in judgment and try out the merits of the various applicants for Federal charters.” U.S. Congress, House
Committee on the Judiciary, To Incorporate the Disabled American Veterans of the World War, hearing on H.R. 4738,
72nd Cong., 1st sess., April 1, 1932 (Washington: GPO, 1932), p. 18. See, also, Member remarks in U.S. Congress,
House Committee on the Judiciary, Incorporate the National Theater and Academy, hearing on H.R. 8214, 74th Cong.,
1st sess., June 11, 1935 (Washington: GPO, 1935), p. 3; U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, A Bill
Providing for Incorporation of the National Council of Negro Veterans, hearing on S. 1497, 78th Cong., 2nd sess.,
February 28, 1944 (unpublished hearing transcript accessed through ProQuest Congressional), p. 11. Notwithstanding
the sentiments expressed in these hearings, it is unclear whether the policy was continually adopted or adhered to
throughout the 1926-1946 period.
70 For example, in support of a charter for the American National Theater and Academy, the House Judiciary
Committee report stated, “The passage of the bill constitutes an official governmental recognition of the enormous
benefits and values flowing from the development of the finest in art and literature, including the theater…. One of the
recognized problems of social and economic importance in the United States today is the proper use of leisure time.
[This] incorporation … will permit a study of the problem of the use of leisure time in the many ways made possible
through patronage of the arts including the theater. The presentation of theatrical productions of the finest sort will, in
the opinion of the committee, make the use of leisure time a thing of benefit to the Nation. The committee … was
impressed with the need for such a movement as is set forth in this bill, of the great potential contribution that it could
make to America and of the ability and earnest devotion of its endorsers. The committee is of the opinion that should
the Congress incorporate the National Theater and Academy it would render a great service to the Nation” (U.S.
Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Incorporate the American National Theater and Academy, report to
accompany H.R. 8214, 74th Cong., 1st sess., June 15, 1935, S.Rept. 74-1240 (Washington: GPO, 1935), p. 2). The
charter was enacted (49 Stat. 457). See, also, U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, To Incorporate the
Disabled American Veterans of the World War, report to accompany H.R. 4738, 72nd Cong., 1st sess., May 10, 1932,
H.Rept. 72-1271 (Washington: GPO, 1932), p. 1. The charter for this organization also was enacted (47 Stat. 320).
71 In 1988, the Veterans’ Administration was redesignated as the Department of Veterans Affairs and elevated to
department status by P.L. 100-527 (102 Stat. 2635). Like its predecessor, the Department of Veterans Affairs is
Congressional Research Service

10

Title 36 Charters: The History and Evolution of Congressional Practices

essential part of their work on behalf of their members, as discussed by the executive director of
one such organization at a 1971 hearing:
It is important that the Paralyzed Veterans of America receive a Federal charter. Without
it, we are denied the right to do for the paraplegic and quadriplegic veteran what we feel is
our most important function: prosecution of veterans claims before the Veterans
Administration. In the present circumstance, our National Service Officers must turn over
adjudication to another veterans’ organization. While most appreciative of the cooperation
of these groups in the past Mr. Chairman, we feel we would best serve our members and
the Nation if we could control the entire process. There are many things regarding these
veterans’ conditions and problems that we know. We know because we have been there
ourselves.72
Pursuant to statutory authority first enacted in 1924,73 VA regulations had long provided for the
“recognition of organizations, associations, and other agencies in the presentation and
adjudication of claims for benefits” by veterans.74 The statute and regulations had included a short
list of specified organizations and “such other organizations as the Administrator of Veterans
Affairs shall approve.”75
The regulations were amended in 1946 to further limit the organizations that could be afforded
this status:
In general, no additional organizations will be recognized after January 1, 1947 except (1)
State or governmental services, or (2) organizations granted a charter or recognition by act
of Congress.76
Looking back on this decision in 1961, the VA administrator explained the reasoning behind the
rule change:
Under existing regulations, with the exception of State or governmental services, as a
matter of policy we do not extend recognition to an organization for the purposes specified

commonly referred to as the VA.
72 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the District of Columbia, Subcommittee on Business, Commerce, and
Judiciary, Estates, Utilities, Assaults on Firemen, and Incorporation, 92nd Cong., 1st sess., June 11, 1971 (Washington:
GPO, 1971), p. 79.
73 World War Veterans’ Act, 1924; P.L. 68-242, Sec. 19; 43 Stat. 607, 612-613. The provision restricted the recognition
of attorneys who could act on behalf of veterans in presenting claims to the United States Veterans’ Bureau for
specified programs to “recognized representatives of the American Red Cross, the American Legion, the Disabled
American Veterans, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars and such other organizations as shall be approved by the
Director.” The act was later amended to specify additional organizations. The United States Veterans’ Bureau was a
predecessor of the Veterans’ Administration. As articulated by a representative of the Disabled American Veterans at a
Senate hearing on the bill, the purpose of the provision was to aid returning veterans with navigating the federal
bureaucracy: “The object of that is this: Our veterans’ organizations are maintaining in the Veterans’ Bureau our liaison
officers—I am describing conditions that exist in all veteran organizations—who act as attorneys for these men without
charge. We have one in every one of the 14 districts, as well as in the central office. These men go there with some of
the men who are so illiterate they cannot properly present their cases, some of whom become hopelessly enmeshed in
this red tape, and our man is their man to fight their battle for them and I think it should be put in there that these
liaison men should be accepted. This service is maintained by us at great expense to our organization, and it has done a
lot of good work, just as liaison officers in other organizations have done, and they should be encouraged.” U.S.
Congress, Senate Committee on Finance, Subcommittee, Veterans’ Bureau Codification Act, hearings on S. 2257, 68th
Cong., 1st sess., February 21, 25, and 27, March 5 and 6, 1924 (Washington: GPO, 1924), pp. 41-42.
74 38 C.F.R. §1.300, 1938 edition.
75 38 C.F.R. §1.300, 1938 edition.
76 VA, “Part 20—Guardianship and Legal Administration; Miscellaneous Amendments,” 11 Federal Register 8596,
August 8, 1946.
Congressional Research Service

11

Title 36 Charters: The History and Evolution of Congressional Practices

in section 3402, unless the organization has been granted a charter or recognition by act of
Congress. This policy was adopted soon after the end of World War II and was based, in
part, on the flood of applications for recognition received from the large number of
organizations growing out of the war and the lack of facilities or information necessary to
determine the qualifications of all such organizations. Another consideration was the
practical problem raised by the provision of law authorizing the furnishing of space and
office facilities for the use of representatives of recognized organizations.77
As discussed in detail below, the administrative nexus between a congressional charter and the
authority of a national organization to represent veterans in the VA claims process was modified
in the late 1970s and 1980s and discontinued in 1992.78
Search for a Workable Process
During the post–World War II period, as numerous groups of veterans and their supporters,
among others, requested charters, Congress sought to establish standards by which such requests
could be evaluated and an audit process through which already-chartered groups could be
monitored.
During a 1946 hearing of a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the chair reflected
on the difficulties associated with granting charters and overseeing chartered organizations:
Here is the problem … that has faced this subcommittee all the way through now for the
past 4 years. We have been beset by applications for charters. All States … have machinery
under which charters are issued…. I know in my State, the secretary of state has the right
to supervise and look after everything, and the committees of Congress simply do not have
the time.
We have bills here—many of them. Here are some of them. These were all issued prior to
5 years ago. Since that time everything has been held in this committee because the
committee felt, as a whole, that some machinery should be set up in which these charters
could be filed; records kept of who their officers were, and these audits made to see that
we were not lending the cloak of congressional authority to an unworthy enterprise….
For instance, we had a terrible contest here last year between four mothers’ groups as to
who would get a charter. We were not in a position to go down and investigate who were
the backers of these groups; who was promoting them; what the purpose was, and we knew
we would have no knowledge, once we granted the charter, as to what the group did;
whether they kept their officers, or what they did.79
During the 79th Congress (1945-1947), the chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Incorporation
Bills, Harley M. Kilgore, introduced a bill that would have established congressional chartering
policy.80 The policy would have limited charters of private organizations to “nonprofit

77 Letter from J. S. Gleason Jr., Administrator of Veterans’ Affairs, to Olin E. Teague, Chair, House Committee on
Veterans’ Affairs, April 25, 1961. Obtained, by subscription, from ProQuest Congressional, an online database of
congressional publications. Gleason’s explanation implies that the process of obtaining a congressional charter could
serve as a proxy for VA VSO screening. The Senate and House committees with the greatest expertise on veterans
issues and, therefore, arguably the best ability to screen VSOs did not have jurisdiction over such congressional
charters. The Senate and House Judiciary Committees have usually been the committees of jurisdiction for Title 36
charter bills in their respective chambers, regardless of the policy area related to the organization.
78 See “End to VA Linkage of Charters and Recognition,” below.
79 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Incorporation Bills, Corporation Charter Bills,
hearings on 13 corporation charter-related bills, 79th Cong., 2nd sess., January 28 and March 22, 1946 (Washington:
GPO, 1946), pp. 4-5.
80 S. 2223 (79th Congress), “To establish and effectuate a policy with respect to the creation or chartering of certain
Congressional Research Service

12

Title 36 Charters: The History and Evolution of Congressional Practices

corporations, organized and operated for charitable, educational, patriotic, or civic-improvement
purposes.”81 DOJ would have “carefully investigated the proposed incorporators and the proposed
purposes of the corporation.”82 Private corporations with congressional charters would then have
been “subjected to an annual audit of their financial transactions by the General Accounting
Office at the expense of the corporation audited in each case; and a report on each such audit
[would have been] made to the Congress.”83 The Senate passed the measure, but the House did
not take it up.84
Similar bills were introduced in succeeding Congresses. Although the beginning of the 80th
Congress (1947-1949) saw a shift in party control in the Senate, the new Judiciary Committee
chair reintroduced the legislation that had passed the Senate the year before.85 But the legislation
appears to have faced criticism from some existing chartered organizations, and it was not taken
up by either chamber.86 When a similar bill was considered in the Senate during 81st Congress
(1949-1951),87 it was amended to address these concerns and passed.88 The Senate passed a
similar measure during the 82nd Congress (1951-1953).89 The House did not take up the
legislation during either Congress. Similar bills were introduced, but not passed by either
chamber, during the 83rd and 84th Congresses (1953-1957).90

corporations by Act of Congress, and for other purposes.”
81 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Establishing and Effectuating a Policy with Respect to the
Creation or Chartering of Certain Corporations by Act of Congress., report to accompany S. 2223, 79th Cong., 2nd
sess., June 11, 1946, S.Rept. 1451 (Washington: GPO, 1946), p. 1.
82 Ibid.
83 Ibid.
84 Ibid.; “Policy with Respect to Chartering of Certain Nonprofit Corporations by Act of Congress,” Senate debate,
Congressional Record, vol. 92, part 6 (June 14, 1946), p. 6920.
85 S. 503 (80th Congress).
86 The Senate Judiciary Committee quickly reported the measure, but the bill’s sponsor soon asked that it be sent back
to committee, stating, “Apparently now the Red Cross and other organizations are concerned about features of this
bill.” U.S. Congress, Senate Judiciary, Establishing and Effectuating a Policy with Respect to the Creation or
Chartering of Certain Corporations by Act of Congress, report to accompany S. 503, 80th Cong., 1st sess., February 19,
1947, S.Rept. 30 (Washington: GPO, 1947); and Sen. Alexander Wiley, “Creation or Chartering of Certain
Corporations-Recommittal of a Bill,” remarks in the Senate, Congressional Record, vol. 93, part 2 (March 12, 1947), p.
1936.
87 S. 1290 (81st Congress). During the 81st Congress, other chartering-process-related legislation was also introduced in
both the House and the Senate but not acted upon in either chamber. H.R. 2555 and S. 958 would have established an
independent commission in the executive branch to grant federal charters to certain categories of organizations, among
other functions.
88 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Establishing and Effectuating a Policy with Respect to the
Creation or Chartering of Certain Corporations by Act of Congress, report to accompany S. 1290, 81st Cong., 1st sess.,
May 16, 1949, S.Rept. 81-390 (Washington: GPO, 1949); “Creation or Chartering of Certain Corporations,” Senate
debate, Congressional Record, vol. 95, part 8 (July 26, 1949), pp. 10186-10187; and “Establishment of Policy with
Respect to Creation or Chartering of Certain Corporations,” Senate debate, Congressional Record, vol. 95, part 8
(August 9, 1949), pp. 11027-11028.
89 S. 1898 (82nd Congress); U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Establishing and Effectuating a Policy
with Respect to the Creation or Chartering of Certain Corporations by Act of Congress, report to accompany S. 1898,
82nd Cong., 1st sess., July 30, 1951, S.Rept. 82-588 (Washington: GPO, 1951); and “Creation or Chartering of Certain
Corporations by Act of Congress,” Senate debate, Congressional Record, vol. 97, part 7 (August 9, 1951), pp. 9696-
9698.
90 S. 3675 (83rd Congress) and S. 1596 (84th Congress).
Congressional Research Service

13

Title 36 Charters: The History and Evolution of Congressional Practices

Although this legislation was not enacted, it appears that a portion of it was the de facto Senate
Judiciary Committee policy during this period. This practice was discussed during a
subcommittee hearing on a charter bill:
Mr. Collins [a committee staff member]: Mr. Chairman, might I point out for the record
also that our Committee has for a number of years had a uniform charter policy. That policy
is contained in this present bill of Senator Kilgore, S. 1596 of the 84th Congress and this
bill sets out certain uniform provisions which must be incorporated in every charter bill
which receives favorable consideration of this Committee, and Section 3 of Senator
Kilgore’s bill sets out a number of points which must be incorporated in any bill conferring
the prestige of a Federal charter.
Senator O’Mahoney: I was unaware of the fact that such a proposal had been made. When
was it first adopted by the Committee?
Mr. Collins: In the 81st Congress.
Senator O’Mahoney: Was it written into a bill?
Mr. Collins: Senator, it passed the Senate in the 81st and 82nd Congress, and our full
Committee has always observed that as a fixed policy.
Senator O’Mahoney: Has it passed the House?
Mr. Collins: No; the House has never acted on it.91
Uniform Audit and Report Requirements
Efforts during the 1940s and 1950s to enact a comprehensive bill on processes for granting Title
36 charters and overseeing chartered organizations were not successful. During the 88th Congress
(1963-1965), however, legislation establishing uniform audit and report requirements for most
Title 36 corporations was enacted.92 The statute also provided the General Accounting Office
(GAO—now called the Government Accountability Office) with a formal role in oversight of
chartered organizations.
By the late 1950s, many of the individual charters in Title 36 required annual audits and reports to
Congress on the corporations’ finances.93 Under these arrangements, the oversight committees
were placed in the position of reviewing the reports—or not. House Judiciary Committee Chair
Emanuel Celler judged that his committee lacked the technical expertise to evaluate the audit
reports it had received. In a 1959 letter to the Comptroller General, Celler requested that GAO
review them instead:
It has become customary to include in Federal charters a provision requiring the chartered
organization to submit a financial report to the Congress each year. Many of these are

91 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Standing Subcommittee on Charters, Holidays, and Celebrations,
hearing on S. 1311, 84th Cong., 1st sess., June 22, 1955 (unpublished hearing transcript accessed through ProQuest
Congressional), p. 8.
92 P.L. 88-504; 78 Stat. 635.
93 United States Code, 1958 Edition, vol. 7, Title 36 (Washington: GPO, 1959). See, for example, §235 (Reserve
Officers Association), §284 (Future Farmers of America), §349 (American Society of International Law), §416
(Conference of State Societies), §444 (National Conference on Citizenship), §475 (National Safety Council), §514
(Board for Fundamental Education), §545 (Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War), §584 (Foundation of the Federal
Bar Association), §614 (National Fund for Medical Education), §644 (Army and Navy Legion of Valor), §674
(National Music Council), §704 (Boys’ Clubs of America), §775 (Veterans of World War I), §804 (Congressional
Medal of Honor Society), §834 (Military Order of the Purple Heart), §864 (Blinded Veterans Association), §894 (Big
Brothers of America), and §923 (Jewish War Veterans, U.S.A., National Memorial, Inc.).
Congressional Research Service

14

Title 36 Charters: The History and Evolution of Congressional Practices

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Unfortunately, we do not have a staff
accountant to examine these reports. I feel that it is most important that these reports be
examined by a skilled accountant. For that reason, I should appreciate it if the General
Accounting Office would examine the enclosed reports which we have received since the
beginning of this congress and such others as are received subsequently.
I am particularly concerned with ascertaining whether these statements comply with the
terms of the reporting requirement in the charters of the reporting organizations, and
whether the statements meaningfully reflect the operations and financial status of these
organizations.94
The Comptroller General agreed that GAO would review the reports as well as “such others as
are subsequently referred to us.”95 Though not yet set in statute, the exchange appears to have
established an ongoing process for GAO review of these reports.96
After several years of these arrangements, GAO staff identified deficiencies in the diverse
auditing and report requirements in Title 36 charters.97 In the view of the auditors, some
requirements were too relaxed, while others were too stringent. They worked with House
Judiciary Committee staff to craft legislation to bring uniformity to these requirements by
repealing each of the existing provisions and establishing a single process that would apply across
48 chartered groups.
First introduced during the 87th Congress (1961-1963),98 the legislation—“To provide for audit of
accounts of private corporations established under Federal law”—was reintroduced and enacted
in the 88th Congress (1963-1965).99
Executive Branch Study: Recommendations on Chartering Criteria
and Standards
With the enactment of this statute, a long-sought uniform auditing mechanism for Title 36
corporations was established. At the same time, legislation providing for chartering criteria and
standards, which had also been called for during the 1940s and early 1950s, had not been enacted.
Meanwhile, the charters included in Title 36 grew from 19 to 48 between 1946 and 1964.100
In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson took the unusual step of vetoing a congressional charter
bill, bringing renewed attention to the absence of chartering standards in his veto message. The

94 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee No. 4, “A Bill to Provide for Audit of Accounts of
Private Corporations Established under Federal Law,” hearing on H.R. 4223, 88th Cong., 1st sess., March 28, 1963,
(unpublished hearing transcript accessed through ProQuest Congressional), p. 5 of the transcript that follows the bill
text.
95 Ibid., p. 6.
96 Ibid., p. 5.
97 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Uniform Audit Requirements for Federally Chartered
Corporations, report to accompany H.R. 4223, 88th Cong., 1st sess., May 14, 1963, H.Rept. 88-298 (Washington: GPO,
1963), p. 2.
98 H.R. 10758 (87th Congress).
99 P.L. 88-504; 78 Stat. 635. This statute was incorporated into Title 36 as Section 10101 when the title was enacted as
positive law in 1998 (P.L. 105-225; 112 Stat. 1253).
100 United States Code, 1946 edition, vol. 3, Title 36 (Washington: GPO, 1946); and United States Code, 1964 edition,
vol. 7, Title 36 (Washington: GPO, 1964).
Congressional Research Service

15

Title 36 Charters: The History and Evolution of Congressional Practices

bill would have granted a charter to the Youth Councils on Civic Affairs.101 He did not find the
organization unworthy but rather found the congressional chartering process lacking:
For some time I have been concerned with the question of whether we were granting
Federal charters to private organizations on a case-by-case basis without the benefit of
clearly established standards and criteria as to eligibility. Worthy civic, patriotic, and
philanthropic organizations can and do incorporate their activities under State law. It seems
obvious that Federal charters should be granted, if at all, only on a selective basis and that
they should meet some national interest standard.
Other questions indicate the desirability of further study of this matter. For example, does
the granting of Federal charters to a limited number of organizations discriminate against
similar and worthy organizations and possibly stifle their growth? Should federally
chartered corporations be more carefully supervised by an agency of the Federal
Government? Does Federal rather than State chartering result in differences in the legal or
tax status of the corporation, and are any differences appropriate ones?102
The President directed DOJ and the Bureau of the Budget (BOB)103 to study, and make
recommendations regarding, chartering issues. In response, DOJ and BOB issued a joint
memorandum to the House Judiciary Committee in 1966104 that included the following findings:
 Congress had shown “discipline in granting charters.”
 There was no “generally agreed-upon comprehensive set of standards to guide
congressional action” on charter requests.
 Notwithstanding required audit reports, chartered organizations were free from
ongoing federal oversight.
 Executive branch agencies had not been incorporated into the charter
consideration process in any consistent and meaningful way.
 Congressional chartering responsibilities were “fragmented,” with charter
proposals sometimes referred to committees other than the respective judiciary
committees.105
With regard to potential standards for conferring charters, the memorandum included a variety of
recommendations:
Such standards should provide that any organization granted a Federal charter should:
Be organized and operated only for charitable, literary, education, scientific, patriotic,
or civic-improvement purposes;
Be nonpartisan;
Be nonsectarian;
Be nonprofit;

101 H.R. 3329 (89th Congress).
102 “Incorporated the Youth Councils on Civic Affairs—Veto message from the President of the United States,” receipt
of communication from the President, Congressional Record, vol. 111, part 17 (September 13, 1965), p. 23623. The
President also urged Congress give the matter further study.
103 Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1970 (84 Stat. 2085) reorganized the Bureau of the Budget as the Office of
Management and Budget.
104 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Governmental
Relations, Oversight on Federal Incorporations, 94th Cong., 1st sess., June 11, 1975 (Washington: GPO, 1975), p. 3.
105 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service

16

Title 36 Charters: The History and Evolution of Congressional Practices

Conduct activities which are of national scope and importance;
Have a name which is not substantially similar to the name of any other corporation
holding a Federal charter;
Be of such unique character that a Federal charter is the only appropriate form of
incorporation, or require a Federal charter in order to obtain tangible legal benefits not
obtainable under charters granted by the States or the District of Columbia;
First have operated under a charter granted by a State or the District of Columbia for
a sufficient length of time to demonstrate that its activities are clearly in the public
interest. (Exceptions to this particular standard might have to be made, of course, for
organizations of such unique character that a Federal charter is the only appropriate
form of incorporation.)106
The memorandum suggested that Congress strictly adhere to these standards. It noted that, in
most cases, federal charters were unnecessary and provided little benefit while increasing
congressional workload. Charters seemingly implied government approval while little meaningful
government supervision was being conducted. To the degree the public interest would be served
through increased public awareness of an organization and its activities, resolutions and public
statements might be used instead.
Executive Branch Study: Legal Benefits of Congressional Charters
DOJ also issued a report on the legal status of Title 36 corporations, which was provided to the
House Judiciary Committee in 1966.107 The document presented the findings of a DOJ study of
the “Federal laws relating to [Title 36 corporations], the impact of selected state laws, and the
background of congressional charters.”
The study found “very few benefits of a congressional charter under federal law” and “no special
recognition of all congressionally-chartered corporations in federal law.”108 It found that Title 36
corporations were treated differently under federal tax law only where a charter specified that the
organization was an instrumentality of the United States. It noted the special recognition
chartered organizations received from the VA, discussed above,109 but found that the VA could
also approve other organizations.
The study’s discussion of Title 36 corporations under state law distinguished between “national
corporations,” which were “established as a ‘body politic’ without any reference to specific
domicile,” and D.C. corporations, which were “established as ‘a body corporate and politic of the
District of Columbia.’”110 Although recognizing this distinction, the study pointed out that varied
wording used in related provisions of Title 36 charters created ambiguity for some Title 36
corporations.
After a review of then-current case law and the laws of 10 states, the study found:

106 Ibid., pp. 3-4.
107 Ibid., pp. 4-11. The findings are briefly summarized here to provide context related to the evolution of congressional
charters, rather than to inform readers about the evolution of statutes and case law affecting Title 36 corporations. The
current federal and state legal status of such corporations is beyond the scope of this report.
108 Ibid., p. 5 (emphasis added).
109 See “Role of Charters in Federal Recognition of Veterans’ Organizations,” above, and “End to VA Linkage of
Charters and Recognition,” below.
110 Oversight on Federal Incorporations, p. 4.
Congressional Research Service

17

Title 36 Charters: The History and Evolution of Congressional Practices

The benefits of a congressional charter under the laws of the various states depend upon
several factors: (1) whether the congressional charter provides national or D.C.
incorporation; (2) whether there is evidence of congressional intent to supersede state
corporation laws; (3) whether state law recognizes a national corporation as foreign or
domestic; and (4) whether state law confers special benefits on congressionally-chartered
corporations.111
The study concluded that any legal benefits associated with a Title 36 charter would not be
broadly available to all organizations with this status:
The corporations found in Title 36 did not depend upon congressional charters for their
existence. Nor are there any certain legal benefits derived from congressional charters.
Organizations chartered as D.C. corporations are domestic corporations in the District and
foreign corporations elsewhere. Any legal benefits flowing from national incorporation are
entirely dependent upon state laws, and the law in this area is largely uncertain. There are
some state laws conferring special benefits on congressionally-chartered veterans’
organizations, but for the most part, the only advantage of a congressional charter is the
prestige value of that charter.112
Committee Adoption of Chartering Standards
Following the DOJ/BOB memorandum and the DOJ report, the subcommittees of the House and
Senate Judiciary Committees with jurisdiction over Title 36 charters jointly agreed to a set of
standards for granting federal charters,113 and these were published at the outset of the 91st
Congress in 1969.114 Under these standards, an organization requesting a charter was required to
show that it was
(1) Operating under a charter granted by a State or the District of Columbia and that it has
so operated for a sufficient length of time to demonstrate its permanence and that its
activities are clearly in the public interest;
(2) Of such unique character that chartering by the Congress as a Federal corporation is the
only appropriate form of incorporation;
(3) Organized and operated solely for charitable, literary, educational, scientific, patriotic,
or civic improvement purposes;
(4) Organized and operated as a nonpartisan and nonprofit organization; and
(5) Organized and operated for the primary purpose of conducting activities which are of
national scope and responsive to a national need, which need cannot be met except upon
the issuance of a Federal charter.115
The adopted document also noted that meeting these standards “shall not—(1) Be considered as
justification in itself for the granting of a Federal charter; or (2) Preclude or limit the Congress
from imposing additional criteria or standards with respect to the granting of a charter to any
organization.”

111 Ibid., p. 5.
112 Ibid., p. 11.
113 Testimony of Mary C. Lawton, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, ibid., p. 11.
114 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Standards for the Granting of Federal Charters to Nonprofit
Corporations, committee print, 91st Cong., 1st sess., 1969 (reprinted 98th Cong., 1st sess.), S.Prt. 98-82 (Washington:
GPO, 1983).
115 Ibid., p. 1.
Congressional Research Service

18

Title 36 Charters: The History and Evolution of Congressional Practices

Although agreed to at the subcommittee level, the standards were not adopted by the full House
or Senate.116 Inasmuch as the standards were not enacted into law or adopted as part of House or
Senate rules, they were not binding on future Congresses or committees.
The House subcommittee of jurisdiction included chartering standards similar to the 1969
requirements as part of subcommittee rules adopted at the beginning of the 95th Congress (1977-
1979).117
Title 36 Chartering Practices Following the 1965 Veto
Following President Johnson’s 1965 veto,118 it appears that no additional Title 36 charters were
enacted until 1971. That year, a Title 36 chartering bill—for the Paralyzed Veterans of America
(PVA)—was referred to the Committees on the District of Columbia in the two chambers,
reported by those committees, and enacted. The Judiciary Committees appear to have resumed
consideration of chartering legislation during the 95th Congress (1977-79).
Enactment of Chartering Legislation Referred to the Committees on the
District of Columbia
The 1971 enactment of a charter for PVA was successful only after the legislation was referred to
the Committees on the District of Columbia in the two chambers, rather than the Committees on
the Judiciary, as had more typically been the case for chartering legislation.119
Legislation to grant PVA a charter was introduced and referred to the Committees on the
Judiciary during the 85th, 86th, 87th, 88th, and 89th Congresses (1957-1966).120 None of these bills
was reported. During the 90th Congress (1967-1969), two House PVA charter bills were referred
to the Judiciary Committee,121 where they saw no further action. In addition, two bills were

116 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Governmental
Relations, Oversight on Federal Incorporations, 94th Cong., 1st sess., June 11, 1975 (Washington: GPO, 1975), p. 14.
117 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Governmental
Relations, Rules, committee print, 95th Cong., 1st sess., January 1977, p. 27. Although similar, the newly adopted
standards differed from the earlier standards in a few substantive ways: The requirement of “unique character” was not
included; demonstration of the group’s permanence was defined as a duration “not less than ten consecutive years in
length;” the group was required to maintain federal tax exempt status; and the group was to be organized “with terms of
membership and requirements for holding office within the organization which are not discriminatory on the basis of
race, color, religion, or national origin.”
118 See “Executive Branch Study: Recommendations on Chartering Criteria and Standards,” above.
119 Although Title 36 charter legislation has most often been referred to the Judiciary Committee in the House, it has
sometimes been referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia (during its existence) or other committees.
During the 92nd Congress, when the PVA charter was considered by the Committee on the District of Columbia and
enacted, 11 bills pertaining to corporate charters were referred to the committee. During the same period, 44 corporate-
charter-related bills were referred to the Committee on the Judiciary (U.S. Congress, House Select Committee on
Committees, Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, report to accompany H.Res. 988, 93rd Cong., 2nd sess., March
21, 1974, H.Rept. 93-916, Part II [Washington: GPO, 1974], pp. 309 and 318). These referral patterns were reflected in
the two committees’ jurisdictions under House rules. The District of Columbia Committee’s jurisdiction included “all
measures relating to the municipal affairs of the District of Columbia … including … [i]ncorporation and organization
of societies,” and the Judiciary Committee’s jurisdiction included “matters relating to trusts and corporations” (U.S.
Congress, House, Constitution, Jefferson’s Manual, and Rules of the House of Representatives, prepared by Lewis
Deschler, Parliamentarian, 92nd Cong., 2nd sess., H.Doc. [Washington: GPO, 1973], pp. 342 and 357).
120 H.R. 11314 (85th Congress); H.R. 3161 and S. 2290 (86th Congress); H.R. 10366, H.R. 10686, and S. 2941 (87th
Congress); H.R. 6484, H.R. 6505, and S. 381 (88th Congress); and H.R. 8845 (89th Congress).
121 H.R. 7533 and H.R. 8540.
Congressional Research Service

19

Title 36 Charters: The History and Evolution of Congressional Practices

referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia.122 Of these two bills, one was reported by
the District of Columbia Committee and passed by the House. In the Senate, the House-passed
bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee, where it saw no action.123 A similar sequence
occurred in the 91st Congress (1969-1971).124
During the 92nd Congress (1971-1973), a single PVA charter bill was introduced in the House, and
it was referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia.125 The committee reported the bill,
and it was passed by the House.126 In the Senate, the bill was also referred to the Committee on
the District of Columbia. The committee’s report explicitly took the position that the committee
should apply the 1969 Judiciary Committee–adopted standards to charter bills under its
consideration. After considering these criteria with regard to the PVA, it concluded that the
organization met the standards.127 The Senate passed the bill, and it was signed into law.128
Although other chartering legislation was introduced during the 92nd Congress—some referred to
the Committees on the District of Columbia and some referred to the Committees on the
Judiciary—none was enacted.129

122 H.R. 11050 and H.R. 11131. The latter bill was reported by committee and passed by the House. The Committee on
the District of Columbia hearing record and written report regarding the legislation did not comment on this atypical
referral. As discussed above (“Executive Branch Study: Recommendations on Chartering Criteria and Standards”), a
1966 DOJ “Memorandum on the Standards for Federal Chartering of Private, Non-Profit Organizations” had reported
that “Congressional responsibility for Federal charters is fragmented. Charter proposals are sometimes referred to
committees other than the Judiciary Committees” (U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee
on Administrative Law and Governmental Relations, Oversight on Federal Incorporations, 94th Cong., 1st sess., June
11, 1975 [Washington: GPO, 1975], p. 3).
123 Another PVA charter bill, S. 1850, was similarly referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee and saw no further
action.
124 See H.R. 1783, referred to the House Committee on the District of Columbia, reported, passed by the House,
referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, and not further acted upon; H.R. 4504, referred to the House Committee on
the District of Columbia with no further action; H.R. 7439, referred to the House Judiciary Committee with no further
action; and S. 1096, referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, and not further acted upon.
125 H.R. 2894.
126 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the District of Columbia, Incorporate the Paralyzed Veterans of America,
report to accompany H.R. 2894, 92nd Cong., 1st sess., April 20, 1971, H.Rept. 92-129 (Washington: GPO, 1971).
127 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the District of Columbia, Incorporate the Paralyzed Veterans of America,
report to accompany H.R. 2894, 92nd Cong., 1st sess., July 30, 1971, S.Rept. 92-323 (Washington: GPO, 1971), pp. 6-7.
128 P.L. 92-93; 85 Stat. 317.
129 For example, the following Title 36 charter bills were referred to the House Committee on the District of Columbia:
H.R. 6105, Merchant Marine War Veterans Association; H.R. 8309, National Association Legions of Honor; H.R.
10677, Gold Star Wives of America; H.R. 14171, American Ex-Prisoners; H.R. 14468, Mid-Continent Railway
Historical Society; H.R. 15188, Pop Warner Little Scholars, Inc.; and H.R. 15453, National Inconvenienced
Sportsmen’s Association. Examples of bills referred to the Committee on the Judiciary in the respective chamber
include the following: H.R. 278, College Benefit System of America; H.R. 3646, Junior Sea Knights of America, Inc.;
H.R. 4918, Gold Star Wives of America; H.R. 5011 and S. 303, Historic Naval Ships Association; H.R. 5340, Navy
Wives Clubs of America; H.R. 7470, Retired Enlisted Association, Inc.; H.R. 8486, Fleet Reserve Association; H.R.
10764 and S. 2509, Pop Warner Little Scholars, Inc.; H.R. 13917, Malden Veterans of Irish Ancestry, Inc.; S. 2337,
Recovery, Inc.; S. 2529, Junior Achievement, Inc.; and S. 3563, World War I Overseas Flyers, Inc.
Congressional Research Service

20

Title 36 Charters: The History and Evolution of Congressional Practices

Enactment of Chartering Legislation Referred to the Committees on the
Judiciary
In 1978, Congress passed legislation to provide a charter for the United States Capitol Historical
Society.130 This Title 36 charter bill appears to have been the first since the 1965 veto to be
reported by both Judiciary Committees and enacted. During the House Judiciary Committee
markup on the measure, a Member noted the infrequency of the action, the special connection
between Congress and the work of the society, and the bill’s requirement that the group also
maintain its incorporation under DC law:
[I]t is rare that the subcommittee recommends or that the House grants a charter to a
corporation, as a Federal charter is substantially a meaningless document. It’s more or less
a feather in the hat of the organization which is being chartered….
We have a unique situation with the United States Capitol Historical Society. All of its
functions are located not only within the District of Columbia, but right here on Capitol
Hill….
Its whole function is to preserve and maintain and to conduct continuing research on the
United States Capitol. We thought that this would be a unique enough situation to justify a
Federal charter, though we have insisted that the Society maintain its incorporation under
the laws of, I believe, the District of Columbia in this case.131
On the House floor, a supporter of the measure noted that the group had also met the “rigorous
standards” that had been adopted by the House Judiciary Committee subcommittee of jurisdiction
at the beginning of the Congress.132
During the ensuing Congresses, additional Title 36 charter bills were reported by one or both
Judiciary Committees and enacted.133 The reports for these bills suggest the committees applied
the chartering standards that had been adopted in 1969 and 1977. In addition, in an effort to
guarantee that the charter legislation was nonpartisan, it appears the Senate Judiciary Committee
had, in 1979, adhered to informal guidelines that “such legislation must have not less than 40
cosponsors and at least 15 Democrats and 15 Republicans.”134 Formal rules and informal
guidelines of these kinds continued to inform the committees’ consideration of charter legislation
through most of the 1980s.135

130 P.L. 95-493; 92 Stat. 1643.
131 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Markup, Pending Legislation, 95th Cong., 2nd sess., September
26, 1978, pp. 42-43.
132 Rep. Carlos J. Moorhead, “U.S. Capitol Historical Society,” House debate, Congressional Record, vol. 124, part 24
(October 2, 1978), p. 32882. For more on subcommittee standards, see “Committee Adoption of Chartering Standards,”
above.
133 See, for example, these three charters enacted during the 96th Congress (1979-1981): P.L. 96-165 (93 Stat. 1267),
granting a charter to United Service Organizations; P.L. 96-497 (94 Stat. 2595), granting a charter to the Gold Star
Wives of America; and P.L. 96-489 (94 Stat. 2553), granting a charter to the National Ski Patrol System.
134 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Incorporating the National Ski Patrol System, report to
accompany S. 43, 96th Cong., 1st sess., November 8, 1979, S.Rept. 96-411 (Washington: GPO, 1979), p. 2. The report
states that this requirement was part of “informal guidelines” on charter legislation that were adopted by the committee.
135 See, for example, rules for subcommittee consideration of charter legislation that were adopted at the beginning of
the 100th Congress (1987-1989) by the House Committee on the Judiciary. These rules largely maintained the
requirements set out in the rules adopted for the 95th Congress (1977-1979), cited above. In addition, the rules stated
that the “Subcommittee will not consider any legislation which grants a federal charter to any organization unless and
until such legislation has a minimum of 218 cosponsors … which grants a federal charter which was adversely reported
by it at a previous consideration and tabled by the Committee … [or] which grants a federal charter unless it contains a
Congressional Research Service

21

Title 36 Charters: The History and Evolution of Congressional Practices

From the 96th Congress through the 100th Congress (1979-1989), more than 20 new Title 36
charter bills were enacted.
Proposal to Delegate Chartering Responsibilities
During the 100th Congress, the House Judiciary Committee subcommittee with jurisdiction over
Title 36 charters considered legislation that would have delegated to the Attorney General the
authority to grant, oversee, and terminate such charters.136
Although the bill was not reported, the committee identified perceived problems with Title 36
charters during an associated hearing:
 Deficiencies in the statutorily required auditing regime, GAO’s implementation
limitations, and the uneven compliance of Title 36 corporations;137
 Legal questions about the ability of states to audit and oversee federally chartered
entities within their borders as they would state-chartered entities;138
 Lack of subcommittee resources to investigate charter applicants and to oversee
chartered organizations;139
 Potential misuse of charters over time;140 and
 Unclear purposes and criteria for granting charters.141
The proposed legislation would have authorized the Attorney General to grant federal charters to
private organizations that met criteria similar to those adopted by the committees of jurisdiction
in 1969.142 The Attorney General would also have been charged with ongoing oversight of
chartered organizations and termination of charters for non-compliance or inactivity.
The bill would have also required that charter bills include provisions directing that (1) the
organization maintain its state-level incorporation and compliance with the state’s laws; (2) the
constitution, bylaws, and articles of incorporation of the organization not be substantially altered
without the Attorney General’s approval; (3) the organization’s income and assets not be used for
the benefit of any member, officer, or director of the corporation beyond reasonable compensation

provision which requires the organization to retain and maintain its existing State or District of Columbia charter for
the life of its Federal charter.” Chartering legislation was also required to include provisions regarding annual
independent audits. U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Administrative Law and
Governmental Relations, Rules, committee print, 100th Cong., 1st sess., 1987 (Washington: GPO, 1987), pp. 10-11.
136 H.R. 3897 (100th Congress).
137 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Governmental
Relations, Granting Federal Charters, hearing on H.R. 2248, S. 1397, H.R. 1259, and H.R. 3897, 100th Cong., 1st sess.
and 2nd sess., November 10, 1987, and March 3, 1988, Serial No. 56 (Washington: GPO, 1988), pp. 10-11 (hereinafter,
Granting Federal Charters).
138 Granting Federal Charters, pp. 17-22.
139 Granting Federal Charters, p. 82.
140 Granting Federal Charters.
141 The Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Tax Division at DOJ testified, “In other words, the central question
in this area of the law has been evident for some time: Given the negligible legal benefits of federal charters and the
inconsistent way in which they are awarded, what is the point of having federally chartered private corporations?”
(Granting Federal Charters, p. 96). The subcommittee chair later commented to the witness that “we have a bill here
which tells you to charter corporations but does not tell you on what basis. I must say to you that if we knew we would
have told you. But we do not know either. Nobody knows. We do not know where these things came from. I do not
know whose idea it was.”
142 The text of the bill is available at Granting Federal Charters, pp. 62-70.
Congressional Research Service

22

Title 36 Charters: The History and Evolution of Congressional Practices

or reimbursement; (4) the organization not be politically active or lobby for legislation; and (5)
the organization not claim or imply that it is acting on behalf of, or with the approval of, the
government.143
DOJ opposed the bill.144 Among the concerns raised by a DOJ witness were these:
 The bill would have transferred “sweeping powers regarding these entities to the
Attorney General without giving any clear idea as to how or why these
corporations are to be given this status in the future.”145
 “Federal charters typically confer little in the way of legal benefits, and are
almost entirely honorific in nature. However, the bill uses the status of possessing
a Federal charter as a vehicle for intrusive types of regulations of these private
corporations’ affairs.”146
 Congress had granted federal charters on a case-by-case basis, “with elected
representatives weighing whether each particular corporation deserves to be
federally chartered.” DOJ would not be able to make decisions on the same basis
and “would not have reasonable grounds for denying a charter to any corporation
that was arguably ‘national in scope’ and plausibly claimed to fulfill a ‘national
need.’”147
 Were DOJ to apply more restrictive standards, litigation under the Administrative
Procedure Act might ensue.148
 Arguably, a charter conferred by DOJ would carry less prestige, even more so if
it conferred a large number of charters as a result of broad criteria.149
 Future chartered organizations would face greater restrictions on political activity
and lobbying—“a set of activities that [had] been considered central to the
mission of many previous federally chartered organizations.”150
Instead, the DOJ witness encouraged the subcommittee to consider two other potential reforms:
One would simply be to tighten up the financial standards that apply to the types of reports
these corporations now submit. We endorse the kinds of reforms made by the GAO in
thoughtful testimony both last November and today.
The second area of reform is that Title 36 should be clarified to make it more clear that
States can regulate Federally chartered private corporations. There appears to be some
confusion in this area now, and there is no need for that type of confusion.151

143 Granting Federal Charters, pp. 62-70.
144 Granting Federal Charters, pp. 92-113.
145 Granting Federal Charters, p. 92.
146 Granting Federal Charters.
147 Granting Federal Charters, p. 97.
148 Granting Federal Charters, p. 98.
149 Granting Federal Charters.
150 Granting Federal Charters, p. 99.
151 Granting Federal Charters, p. 92.
Congressional Research Service

23

Title 36 Charters: The History and Evolution of Congressional Practices

End to VA Linkage of Charters and Recognition
By the late 1970s, VA regulations had long provided for the “recognition of organizations,
associations, and other agencies in the presentation and adjudication of claims for benefits” by
veterans.152 VA amended the regulations in 1946 to limit its recognition of additional
organizations, in general, to “(1) State or governmental services, or (2) organizations granted a
charter or recognition by act of Congress.”153 This administrative nexus between a national
organization’s congressional charter and its authority to represent veterans in the VA claims
process continued through 1977.154
In 1978, VA amended these regulations to allow additional organizations to seek recognition from
VA for representational purposes in a new category of “other organizations.” The category of
“national organizations” was, by definition, limited to those groups that had congressional
charters.155 Non-chartered organizations had to demonstrate to VA that they met specified
requirements.156 The amended regulations also authorized the VA administrator to “furnish space
and office facilities, if available, for the use of paid full-time representatives of recognized
national organizations” but not state or other organizations.157 Additional amendments finalized in
1988 specified that new congressionally chartered organizations seeking VA recognition as
“national organizations” must meet certain size and capability requirements and requirements that
had been applied to “other organizations” since 1978.158
In 1992, references to congressional charters were removed from the regulation, ending the
linkage between charter status and recognition by the VA.159 The VA explained:
Under the provisions of 36 U.S.C. 5902(a)(2), only those VA-recognized service
organizations qualifying as “national” may be provided VA office space and facilities on a
space available basis. VA’s regulation at 38 CFR 14.628(a), defining the criteria for
recognition of a national organization, as opposed to a “state” or “other” organization,
requires that organizations other than those recognized by VA prior to October 10, 1978,
have a Federal charter in order to be considered “national” in character.
Congressional chartering has largely lost its significance for VA recognition purposes since
VA amended its recognition criteria in 1988 to add specific requirements concerning the
size and scope of organizations recognized as national. These criteria provide a more
complete and appropriate test of whether an organization may be considered “national” for
VA purposes. Further, the Department has been advised by Congressmen Barney Frank,
Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Administrative Law and

152 38 C.F.R. §1.300, 1938 edition. See “Role of Charters in Federal Recognition of Veterans’ Organizations,” above.
For more information about VSOs, see CRS Report R46412, Veterans Service Organizations (VSOs): Frequently
Asked Questions, by Tamar B. Breslauer and Carol D. Davis; and CRS Report R46428, Veterans Accredited
Representatives: Frequently Asked Questions, by Heather M. Salazar and Tamar B. Breslauer.
153 VA, “Part 20—Guardianship and Legal Administration; Miscellaneous Amendments,” 11 Federal Register 8596,
August 8, 1946.
154 38 C.F.R. §14.626, 1977 edition.
155 Ibid., “§14.627 Definitions,” at 46535.
156 VA, “§14.628 Requirements for recognition of organizations,” 43 Federal Register 46535, October 10, 1978.
157 Ibid., “§14.637 Space and office facilities,” at 46537.
158 VA, “Recognition of Organizations, Representatives, Attorneys, and Agents,” 52 Federal Register 8472, March 18,
1987; VA, “Recognition of Organizations, Representatives, Attorneys, and Agents,” 53 Federal Register 52416,
December 28, 1988. The congressionally chartered organizations subject to these requirements were those chartered
after October 10, 1978.
159 VA, “Recognition of Organizations,” 57 Federal Register 33877, July 31, 1992.
Congressional Research Service

24

Title 36 Charters: The History and Evolution of Congressional Practices

Governmental Relations, and G.V. (Sonny) Montgomery, Chairman of the House
Committee on Veteran’s Affairs, that Congressman Frank’s Subcommittee, which is
responsible for matters relating to issuance of such charters, is ceasing action on such
charters. The Committee reportedly receives many requests for charters, but does not have
the resources to investigate or monitor numerous organizations to determine if they are
worthy of receipt or continued receipt of such charters. Under such circumstances, it
appears that Federal chartering has lost whatever significance it may have had for VA
recognition purposes.
This proposed amendment, by removing the requirement that service organizations
recognized on or after October 10, 1978, have a Federal charter in order to qualify as a
“national” organization, would result in more organizations potentially being able to
qualify for “national” status so that they might request space at VA facilities.160
Moratorium on Considering New Title 36 Charter Legislation
At the outset of the 101st Congress, the House Judiciary Committee subcommittee with
jurisdiction over the matter approved a moratorium on the consideration of new Title 36 charter
legislation. This was not the first time the congressional committees with primary chartering
jurisdiction had sought to set limits on the practice. As discussed above, the Committees on the
Judiciary of the House and Senate had eschewed consideration of most chartering legislation
from approximately 1926 until 1946.161 Committee reporting of Title 36 charters had again
dropped off from 1965 until 1978 following President Johnson’s 1965 veto message, discussed
above,162 in which he suggested that the congressional chartering process lacked meaningful
criteria and standards.
However, the House subcommittee moratorium was perhaps the most explicit limit on
consideration of new Title 36 charters. The House Judiciary Committee report at the end of the
101st Congress (1989-1991) included a summary of the subcommittee’s reasoning and actions at
the end of the Congress:
On February 23, 1989, the Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Governmental
Relations held an organizational meeting at which it considered the adoption of rules for
granting federal charters.
In considering whether to adopt such rules (which had governed the Subcommittee
consideration of charters since the mid-1970’s), the Subcommittee discussed the growing
problems regarding the granting of federal charters. The primary problem with federally
chartered organizations is that the charter leads to the public perception that an organization
and its activities carry a congressional “seal of approval” and worthwhileness for all of the
organization’s activities. Despite this perception, in fact Congress does not have facilities
to monitor the activities and operations of the existing 87 federally chartered organizations
spread throughout the country. Moreover, a number of State agencies have withheld their
regulatory authority over these organizations with the mistaken belief that the federal
government was monitoring these groups. Also, if a chartered organization changes or in
some way acts inappropriately after its federal charter is granted, Congress has no direct
way to know about these developments, and only another law passed by Congress can
repeal or alter the charter that was granted.

160 VA, “Recognition of Organizations,” 57 Federal Register 8852, March 13, 1992.
161 See “Committee Resistance to Charters.”
162 See “Executive Branch Study: Recommendations on Chartering Criteria and Standards.”
Congressional Research Service

25

Title 36 Charters: The History and Evolution of Congressional Practices

In response to these concerns, the Subcommittee decided not to adopt rules for the granting
of federal charters. The Subcommittee approved instead a motion to impose a moratorium
on the granting of federal charters.
The Subcommittee’s decision is not based on a decision that the organizations seeking
federal charters are not worthwhile, but rather is based on the fact that federal chartering
does not serve a valid purpose and therefore ought not to be continued. This, of course, in
no way reflects adversely on any particular organization, nor does it in anyway prevent
organizations from accomplishing, under their State charters, all of the goals for which they
were established.163
This moratorium persisted through the end of the 115th Congress (2017-2019). Although the
subcommittee does not appear to have formally readopted this policy since then, the committee
did not report new Title 36 charter legislation during the 116th Congress (2019-2021) or during
the first session of the 117th Congress (2021-2023).
The moratorium did not bring a complete end to bills seeking charters while it was in effect, and
some of these bills were enacted without the subcommittee’s involvement. Examples of new
charters enacted and added to Title 36 during the moratorium period, although not reported by the
House Judiciary Committee, include the following:
 The charter for the Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms
Safety was included in the National Defense Authorization Act for FY1996.164
 The Fleet Reserve Association was chartered through the National Defense
Authorization Act for FY1997.165
 The Air Force Sergeants Association was chartered as part of the National
Defense Authorization Act for FY1998.166
 The American GI Forum of the United States was chartered, in 1998, by an act
with that sole purpose.167
 The National Recording Preservation Foundation was chartered as part of the
National Recording Preservation Act, enacted in 2000.168
 The Korean War Veterans Association was given a federal charter, in 2008, by an
act with that sole purpose.169
 The Military Officers Association of America was chartered, in 2009, by an act
with that sole purpose.170
 The National Foundation on Fitness, Sports, and Nutrition was chartered, in
2010, by an act with that sole purpose.171

163 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Report on the Activities of the Committee on the Judiciary of the
House of Representatives during the One Hundred First Congress, pursuant to Clause 1(d) Rule XI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, 101st Cong., 2nd sess., January 3, 1991, H.Rept. 101-1015 (Washington: GPO, 1991), p. 157.
164 P.L. 104-106, Title XVI; 110 Stat. 515.
165 P.L. 104-201, Title XVIII; 110 Stat. 2760.
166 P.L. 105-85, Title XV; 111 Stat. 1963.
167 P.L. 105-231; 112 Stat. 1530.
168 P.L. 106-474, Title II; 114 Stat. 2091.
169 P.L. 110-254; 122 Stat. 2419.
170 P.L. 111-95; 123 Stat. 3001.
171 P.L. 111-332; 124 Stat. 3576.
Congressional Research Service

26

Title 36 Charters: The History and Evolution of Congressional Practices

No new Title 36 charters were enacted from 2011 through 2021. It appears that the National
Foundation on Fitness, Sports, and Nutrition Establishment Act, signed into law on December 22,
2010, is the most recently enacted federal charter in Title 36. In 2018, Title 36 was amended to
recognize the United States Center for Safe Sport “as the independent national safe sport
organization for the United States.”172 However, the amendment did not explicitly grant the
organization a federal charter.
Potential Benefits and Drawbacks of Title 36
Charters
Certain nonprofit organizations and some Members of Congress have valued and sought Title 36
charters for their perceived benefits.173 Seemingly, such charters could also impose costs on
chartered organizations and Congress.
Leaders of organizations seeking charters have sometimes perceived that a Title 36 charter would
give their group a special status, tantamount to a congressional seal of approval, which might
attract members and donors.174 In the past, some veterans’ groups sought Title 36 charters because
VA rules long gave chartered groups special recognition in the presentation of veterans’ claims
before the agency.175 Although VA rules no longer provide a special status for veterans’ groups
with Title 36 charters,176 the historical association of Title 36 veterans’ organizations with a
special VA status might continue to confer some greater prestige on a group that has such a
charter.177
Seeking and having a Title 36 charter might also have drawbacks for an organization. Obtaining a
charter from Congress might be time and resource consuming for an organization, particularly
one without an advocate in Congress, and the potential benefits are unlikely to be clear and
immediate to the group’s supporters. In addition, chartered organizations might face greater
future oversight risks if congressional committees were to conduct more active Title 36 charter
oversight than they have in the past. A Title 36 charter does not, per se, require a corporation to be
more responsive to congressional oversight. Should the committees find such a group to be

172 36 U.S.C. §220541(a)(1).
173 Notwithstanding the general downward trend in enactment of Title 36 charter bills in recent decades, legislation to
grant new charters has continued to be introduced. See, for example, H.R. 1839 (117th Congress), a bill to “amend title
36, United States Code, to grant a Federal charter to the National Lighthouse Museum.”
174 As stated in 2017 by the House subcommittee of jurisdiction, “The primary reasons that organizations seek Federal
charters are to have the honor of Federal recognition and to use this status in fundraising. These charters grant no new
privileges or legal rights to organizations.” U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on
Immigration and Border Security, “Subcommittee Policy on New Federal Charters,” 115th Cong., adopted March 21,
2017, available at https://web.archive.org/web/20170427090455/https://judiciary.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/
03/Federal-Charters-Policy-115th.pdf.
175 See “Role of Charters in Federal Recognition of Veterans’ Organizations,” above.
176 See “End to VA Linkage of Charters and Recognition,” above.
177 As discussed above (“Executive Branch Study: Legal Benefits of Congressional Charters”), a 1966 study by DOJ
found “some state laws conferring special benefits on congressionally-chartered veterans’ organizations” (U.S.
Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Governmental Relations,
Oversight on Federal Incorporations, 94th Cong., 1st sess., June 11, 1975 [Washington: GPO, 1975), p. 11]). The
current status of potential legal benefits under state law is beyond the scope of the research for this report.
Congressional Research Service

27

Title 36 Charters: The History and Evolution of Congressional Practices

unresponsive, however, they might elect to review its charter for potential amendment or
repeal.178
Congressional Oversight
In general, it does not appear that organizations with Title 36 charters have been subject to closer scrutiny than
other organizations have. The United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee (USOPC—prior to 2019 known
as the United States Olympic Committee or USOC) and the American National Red Cross (ANRC) are two well-
known exceptions.
A House Energy and Commerce Committee subcommittee and the Senate on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation Committee each held multiple hearings in 2003 to review the operations and management of the
USOC following reports of perceived leadership dysfunction.179 Subsequently, several USOC reform bills were
introduced, including one that was passed by the Senate.180
Committees of Congress have held multiple hearings on the ANRC during its more than 120 years. In 2005, for
example, the Subcommittee on Oversight of the House Committee on Ways and Means held a hearing on the
response of the ANRC, among other organizations, to the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina.181 The
ANRC charter has been amended at least 10 times.182
Unlike many Title 36 chartered organizations, the USOPC and the ANRC are statutorily vested with specified
jurisdiction or status in service of national purposes. This might account, at least in part, for the level of
congressional oversight they receive. One purpose of the USOPC, for example, is “to exercise exclusive
jurisdiction, directly or through constituent members of committees, over - (A) all matters pertaining to United
States participation in the Olympic Games, the Paralympic Games, the Pan-American Games, and the Parapan
American Games, including representation of the United States in the games; and (B) the organization of the
Olympic Games, the Paralympic Games, the Pan-American Games, and the Parapan American Games when held in
the United States.”183 Congress chartered the ANRC in 1900 for the purposes of fulfilling some of the duties of
the United States under specified international treaties.184
Another potential Title 36 charter drawback, from the perspective of the chartered organization, is
that any changes to that charter require the enactment of amendments. Such amendments might
be enacted as standalone legislation or as a rider to a larger bill. Either way, the measure must go
through the legislative process, which can sometimes be protracted. Title 36 charters enacted in
recent decades have sometimes been worded so as to permit the organization to establish and
make changes to its rules of governance through its state-level incorporation documents and its
bylaws, obviating the need to return to Congress for such changes.185

178 As discussed below, at least one Title 36 charter for an active organization has been repealed.
179 See, for example, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade
and Consumer Protection, Does the U.S. Olympic Committee’s Organizational Structure Impede Its Mission?, hearing,
108th Cong., 1st sess., March 19, 2003 (Washington: GPO, 2003); and U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation, United States Olympic Committee (USOC) Reform, hearing, 108th Cong., 1st sess.,
February 13, 2003, S.Hrg. 108-895 (Washington: GPO, 2006).
180 See S. 1404 (108th Congress), the United States Olympic Reform Act.
181 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Oversight, The Response of Charities to
Hurricane Katrina, hearing, 109th Cong., 1st sess., December 13, 2005 (Washington: GPO, 2006).
182 See historical and revision notes in 36 U.S.C. Ch. 3001.
183 36 U.S.C. §220503(3).
184 36 U.S.C. §300102.
185 See, for example, the charter for the Military Officers Association of America, which includes the specification that
“[t]he composition of the board of directors of the corporation, and the responsibilities of the board, are as provided in
the articles of incorporation and bylaws of the corporation” (36 U.S.C. §140404(a)).
Congressional Research Service

28

Title 36 Charters: The History and Evolution of Congressional Practices

For Congress, Title 36 charters can be a tangible way for Members to assist constituent groups or
to support the groups’ public policy aims. Many successful chartering efforts have been
championed by one or two Members in each chamber.
Title 36 charters also pose potential drawbacks for Congress. As discussed above, the public
might perceive Title 36 charters as congressional “seals of approval.”186 But congressional
committees of jurisdiction have often noted that they lack the resources to investigate all
organizations seeking such charters and to exercise ongoing oversight after a charter has been
granted. Even if such resources could be made available, it is unclear how investigating and
overseeing groups with a broad array of purposes and activities would be connected to the central
work of these committees. By providing a perceived seal of approval to certain organizations
without advance investigation and ongoing oversight, Congress and individual Members face a
reputational risk in the event of a scandal.
Quasi-Governmental Corporation Charters:
Drafting Decisions and Referral Patterns
As previously discussed, legislation to establish quasi-governmental independent nonprofit
corporations with national or regional public policy purposes has been drafted in a variety of
ways. These drafting decisions have implications for how each bill, if enacted, would be
classified to the United States Code. Some bills have amended Title 36, while others have
amended other titles. Still others have been drafted as “freestanding” provisions that do not
amend the Code, leaving to the Office of the Law Revision Counsel the determination of whether
or where they would be classified.187 These legislative differences appear to have influenced the
bills’ referral in the House. Legislation to grant Title 36 charters has generally been referred to the
House Judiciary Committee in recent decades.188 However, chartering legislation that has not
amended Title 36 has generally been referred to other committees. During the 90th Congress
(1967-1969), for example, charter legislation for the National Park Foundation, which supports
the work of the National Park Service, was referred to the House and Senate Committees on
Interior and Insular Affairs, the committee now known as the Committee on Natural Resources.189

186 See “Charter Volume and Congressional ‘Seal of Approval’” and “Moratorium on Considering New Title 36
Charter Legislation.”
187 See “Corporations with Quasi-Governmental Functions.” According to the Office of the Law Revision Counsel, if
“a provision amends a section or statutory note in the Code, it is classified to that section or note.” The office makes a
determination about whether and where “freestanding provisions” are to be classified in the United States Code. See
U.S. House of Representatives, Office of the Law Revision Counsel, “United States Code: About Classification of
Laws to the United States Code,” https://uscode.house.gov/about_classification.xhtml. In recent decades, most
chartering legislation that has become part of Title 36 has explicitly amended the title. One exception is the National
Foundation on Fitness, Sports, and Nutrition Act, which was classified to the front matter of Title 36, Subtitle II, Part
B, as a statutory note. One example of a statute that established a quasi-governmental corporation by amending another
section of law is Title II of the Preventative Health Amendments of 1992, which established the National Foundation
for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This statute amended Title III of the Public Health Service Act,
which is classified to 42 U.S.C. §§241 et seq. In contrast, the statute that established the quasi-governmental National
Center for Research in Advanced Information and Digital Technologies did not amend a section or statutory note in the
United States Code, and it was classified to 20 U.S.C. §9631.
188 There have been exceptions to this practice. During the 106th Congress, for example, legislation to establish a
National Recording Preservation Foundation through an amendment to Title 36 was referred to the Committee on
House Administration and the Committee on the Judiciary in the House as well as the Committee on Rules and
Administration in the Senate. See S. 1927, H.R. 3379, and H.R. 4846 for the 106th Congress.
189 See H.R. 10921, S. 3676, H.R. 10835, and S. 814 for the 90th Congress.
Congressional Research Service

29

Title 36 Charters: The History and Evolution of Congressional Practices

During the 102nd Congress, House legislation to establish the National Foundation for the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention was referred to the House Committee on Energy and
Commerce.190 The National Institute of Building Sciences, a quasi-governmental entity vested
with national purposes, was established by non–Title 36 charter legislation enacted during the 93rd
Congress (1973-1975) that had been referred to the House Committee on Banking and Currency
(now Financial Services) and the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.191
Title 36 Charters for Quasi-Governmental Corporations
Congress has sometimes used a Title 36 charter to establish a quasi-governmental organization, such as a
foundation, that supports the work of a federal agency. Examples of such groups include federal-government-
affiliated organizations, such as the National Film Preservation Foundation and the National Recording
Preservation Foundation, which are affiliated with the Library of Congress; the Corporation for the Promotion of
Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety, which is affiliated with the U.S. Army; the National Foundation on Fitness,
Sports, and Nutrition, which is affiliated with the Office of the President’s Council on Sports, Fitness and
Nutrition; and the National Academy of Sciences, which conducts research that is responsive to the needs or
concerns of Congress and federal agencies. Other organizations of national purpose with less direct ties to specific
federal agencies include the ANRC, the USOPC, the National Academy of Public Administration, and the National
Conference on Citizenship. Such groups often operate with greater flexibility than would be the case if they were
established as federal agencies that were subject to government management laws. As a private organization, this
kind of chartered group can potentially expand the resources available to a federal agency without increasing the
size of government.
The determination about which committee(s) will receive a particular bill to charter a new quasi-
governmental corporation might also influence whether that bill receives committee consideration
given the House and Senate Judiciary Committees’ Title 36 charter moratorium policies and
practices. Seemingly, the moratorium on consideration of Title 36 charter bills was intended to
apply to any legislation pertaining to a private, nonprofit organization that was referred to the
House Judiciary Committee and its Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Governmental
Relations.192 It is not clear, however, whether the moratorium was intended to apply to
consideration of bills to charter new quasi-governmental organizations that were referred to this
committee and subcommittee.193
The referral decision might also determine what standards and criteria would be used to evaluate,
amend, and report such a bill. The House and Senate Judiciary Committees’ standards and criteria
for considering charter legislation evolved during a decades-long history of considering requests
for Title 36 charters. Other committees, which generally do not share that experience, might or
might not apply similar standards and criteria during consideration of a particular bill to charter a
new quasi-governmental corporation.194

190 See H.R. 3635 (102nd Congress).
191 See S. 2103 and S. 3066 (93rd Congress).
192 The moratorium policy for the 115th Congress (2017-2019) stated, “The subcommittee will not consider any
legislation to grant new Federal Charters…. This policy represents a continuation of the Subcommittee’s informal
policy, which was put in place at the start of the 101st Congress, against granting new Federal charters to private, non-
profit organizations.” (Emphasis added. A copy of this policy is available to congressional offices from the author of
this report.) By the 115th Congress, the subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee with this jurisdiction was
named the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security.
193 Few such bills were referred to the subcommittee during the moratorium period. For one example, however, see
“Referral Variation Example for Quasi-Governmental Corporations.”
194 Although other committees could adopt the practices used by the House and Senate Judiciary Committees when
considering charters for corporations of national purpose, it is not clear whether they would elect to do so. The 20th
century debates about Title 36 charters pertained, for the most part, to those granted to private charitable, patriotic, and
Congressional Research Service

30

Title 36 Charters: The History and Evolution of Congressional Practices

Example of Variations in the Referral of Legislation Establishing Quasi-
Governmental Corporations
The legislative history of the American Indian Education Foundation Act of 2000 broadly illustrates some of the
variations that have occurred in the referral of legislation to charter a quasi-governmental corporation. Three
similar bills to establish an American Indian Education Foundation, which was to be affiliated with the Office of
Indian Education Programs of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, were introduced during the 106th Congress. In the
Senate, S. 1290, which would have established the foundation as a Title 36 chartered corporation, was introduced
on June 28, 1999, and was referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs. The committee held hearings on the bill
and reported it without amendment. The measure passed in the Senate on November 4, 1999. After receipt in the
House, S. 1290 was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and its Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims.
This legislation saw no further congressional action. In the House, H.R. 2661, which would have also established
the foundation as a Title 36 chartered corporation, was introduced on July 30, 1999. The bill was also referred to
the Committee on the Judiciary and its Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. It saw no further congressional
action. A third bill, H.R. 3080, which proposed to establish a similar foundation by amending the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act,195 was introduced on October 14, 1999. This bill was referred to
the Committee on Education and the Workforce, which did not act on it, and the Committee on Resources,
which reported the bill on December 14, 2000. The language of H.R. 3080 was subsequently included as Title XIII
of the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act, which was enacted on December 27, 2000.196
Legislative Process for Enacting and Amending
Charters
Title 36 charters are public laws, and the process for their enactment follows that of many other
legislative initiatives. It has generally begun with the drafting, introduction, and referral of a bill
in either chamber. Such charter bills are generally structured as amendments to Title 36 of the
United States Code, included as a note to Title 36, or written as an amendment to a different title
of the United States Code, at the discretion of the Office of the Law Revision Counsel.197
The Senate and House Judiciary Committees have usually been the committees of jurisdiction for
Title 36 charter bills in their respective chambers regardless of the policy area related to the
organization. In the House, the Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship and its predecessor
subcommittees have had jurisdiction within the Judiciary Committee. As discussed above, these
committees have sometimes had formal or informal requirements or moratoria related to
consideration of new Title 36 charter legislation.198
The same process has been used to make changes to existing charters. As public laws, charters
may be changed through enactment of other public laws. At least one existing charter has been
repealed through this process. The 1907 congressional charter of the National German-American

fraternal nonprofit organizations. The debates generally did not address whether Congress should continue to charter,
under Title 36, quasi-governmental organizations that support federal agencies’ missions or that are statutorily vested
with authorities and functions that are intended to address national needs.
195 25 U.S.C. §§5301 et seq.
196 See Rep. Don Sherwood, “Omnibus Indian Advancement Act,” House debate, Congressional Record, daily edition,
vol. 146, part 136 (October 26, 2000), pp. H11327-H11349, at H11348. In 2004, P.L. 108-267 renamed this foundation
as the National Fund for Excellence in American Indian Education. See 25 U.S.C. §5421.
197 See U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Office of the Law Revision Counsel, “About Classification of Laws
to the United States Code,” https://uscode.house.gov/about_classification.xhtml.
198 See “Committee Adoption of Chartering Standards” and “Moratorium on Considering New Title 36 Charter
Legislation,” above.
Congressional Research Service

31

Title 36 Charters: The History and Evolution of Congressional Practices

Alliance of the United States of America was repealed in 1918 following extensive Senate
Judiciary Committee hearings.199
Concluding Observations
Congress has long granted charters to private organizations. Historically, it incorporated for-profit
and nonprofit organizations within the District of Columbia under its constitutional authority to
legislate for that jurisdiction.200 Early in the 20th century, Congress vested incorporation authority
in the District government, obviating the need for Congress to continue to perform this function.
However, private charitable, patriotic, and fraternal nonprofit organizations, particularly those
with a national reach, continued to seek charters from Congress. More than 80 of the charters in
Title 36 were granted after Congress had given the District government this authority.
The House and Senate Judiciary Committees have periodically tried to define the purpose of, and
standards for, Title 36 charters.201 At times they have adopted, formally or informally, chartering
standards. Some Members have also expressed concern about the capacity of these committees to
continually oversee the organizations that have received these charters. The committees sought,
and received, auditing assistance from GAO as part of their oversight efforts. The committees
also considered, but did not report, legislation that would have vested the authority to grant and
oversee charters in DOJ.
At times, the committees determined that the congressional recognition that charters conferred on
meritorious groups was outweighed by the resource costs and the potential for unsupervised
chartered groups to engage in activities that might harm the public and reflect poorly on
Congress. On several occasions, they adopted years-long formal or informal moratoria on
consideration of new ones.
Between 1989 and 2018, the House Judiciary Committee subcommittee of jurisdiction in this area
adopted a moratorium on consideration of new charters.202 During the first 22 years of the
moratorium, at least eight new charters were enacted, usually through processes that did not
require the subcommittee’s support. Title 36 charter legislation has not been a matter of active
legislative debate during recent Congresses, and none was enacted from 2011 through 2021.
Potential for Resumption of Title 36 Charters
The recent period during which Title 36 chartering was held in disfavor is the longest of any
period of formal or informal moratoria since the beginning of the 20th century. Groups continue to
seek these charters, however, and some Members have continued to introduce legislation on
behalf of those they support. Absent any formal rules in the House or Senate that prevent
enactment of such measures, the possibility of a return to former chartering practices exists.
Consequently, Member offices, the House and Senate committees of jurisdiction, and other

199 P.L. 65-206; 40 Stat. 917, repealing P.L. 59-113; 34 Stat. 928. See, also, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the
Judiciary, Subcommittee on S. 3529, National German-American Alliance, hearings on S. 3529, a bill to repeal the act
entitled “An Act to Incorporate the National German-American Alliance,” approved February 25, 1907, 65th Cong., 2nd
sess., February 23, 25, and 28, 1918; March 2, 4, 9, 11, 19, 20, 21, and 22, 1918; and April 1, 9, 10, 11, 13, 1918
(Washington: GPO, 1918).
200 See “Origins and Evolution of Title 36 Charters,” above.
201 See “Evolving Chartering and Oversight Issues,” above.
202 See “Moratorium on Considering New Title 36 Charter Legislation,” above.
Congressional Research Service

32

Title 36 Charters: The History and Evolution of Congressional Practices

congressional committees might again face decisions about this practice as well as individual
charter requests.
If the committees of jurisdiction in Congress were to consider a resumption of former chartering
practices, they might review some of the related considerations that have arisen in the past:
 What would be the purpose and value of Title 36 charters?
 What would be the standards that a group should meet in order to be granted a
charter, and how would committees assess whether a group has met these
standards?
 Would legislation to grant a Title 36 charter to a quasi-government corporation be
subject to the same committee practices as such legislation for private, nonprofit
organizations?
 What would be the congressional role in oversight of chartered organizations?
 Should the House and Senate Judiciary Committees continue to have jurisdiction
over the granting and oversight of Title 36 charters, or should charters be granted
and overseen according to their subject matter (e.g., veterans’ affairs,
international sports, federal-agency-affiliated foundations)?

Author Information

Henry B. Hogue

Specialist in American National Government

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R47236 · VERSION 1 · NEW
33