[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 36 (Wednesday, March 19, 1997)]
[House]
[Page H1156]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             MASS MAILINGS

  (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I seek this time to engage the gentleman 
from Delaware in a colloquy in regard to his amendment on the fiscal 
year 1997 appropriation bill that discloses the costs of mass mailings.
  I yield to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for purposes of 
clarification of his amendment.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding to me.
  My amendment provides for greater disclosure of franked mass mail 
costs than is currently provided. It requires that the statement, 
``this mass mailing was prepared, published and mailed at taxpayer 
expense'' be printed on each mass mailing. It requires that on a 
quarterly basis the total number of pieces and the total cost of such 
mass mailings sent by each Member of Congress be disclosed to the 
public.
  It also provides for piece and cost comparisons based on the number 
of addresses that are in each district.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman indicated that his amendment 
included the term ``total cost.'' By total cost, notwithstanding what 
those words mean, did the gentleman mean to include the associated 
printing and production costs of mass mailings such as computer time, 
print costs, paper costs, and ink costs?
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, my 
primary concern has been the cost of mailing franked mail. I have been 
a staunch supporter of reducing the franked mail appropriation and am 
very pleased by the effort that has been made in recent years to rein 
in these costs, mostly under the gentleman's tutelage.
  The cost of mailing franked mail as presently reported does not 
differentiate between unsolicited mass mail and constituent response 
mail. Thus watchdog groups which report on how much of a Member's 
franked mail budget is used are unable to make this distinction, which 
I believe is an important one.
  It is the responsibility and obligation of Members to respond to 
their constituents, and I think the public supports this use of 
taxpayer dollars. Unsolicited mass mail falls into a different 
category. Yet the public has no way of knowing how much Members are 
spending to mail unsolicited mass mail. This is the issue I was trying 
to address with my amendment.
  The other body's administrative system makes it easy for that body to 
report its Members' mailing costs and production costs of franked mail. 
However, given that the House does not yet have a system set up to do 
this and given that production costs were not the target of my 
amendment, I believe that Members should not be required to report 
production costs.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman because the House does 
not yet have a way to capture the printing and production costs. If the 
purpose of the gentleman's amendment, as stated, is to disclose to the 
public the mailing costs of mass mailings, that can easily be 
accomplished.
  I thank the gentleman for his clarification as well as for his 
efforts in reforming the use of the frank.

                          ____________________