[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 118 (Tuesday, September 9, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1699-E1700]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


INTRODUCTION OF A BILL TO PROVIDE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN OFFICIAL 
   MASS MAILING ALLOWANCE FOR MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. MICHAEL N. CASTLE

                              of delaware

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, September 9, 1997

  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, the congressional franking privilege 
combines two of the American people's worst pet peeves--one being the 
fact that Congress is perceived to enjoy perks and privileges 
unavailable to average citizens. The second is junk mail. American 
mailboxes are flooded with junk mail, and some of that is unsolicited 
mass mail from their Representative here in Congress.
  Members have a legitimate need to respond to the inquiries and 
concerns of their constituents, and the franking privilege facilities 
this. I think the public understands this, and supports this use of 
their tax dollars. Unsolicited mass mail from Members, however, is 
another story.
  In recent years, Congress has done an excellent job cutting back the 
taxpayer funding of franked mail. Fiscal year 1997's level of funding 
was 40 percent lower than 1996's level of funding--a very impressive 
reduction. Furthermore, Members are prohibited from sending mailings 90 
days within the general election.
  But there is still room for improvement. We need to codify the 
reforms we've made in statute, and keep moving forward down the road to 
complete reform. For example, the volume of outgoing franked mail 
continues to outpace the volume of incoming mail. In 1995, the House 
sent out four times more mail than it received. If the House had 
responded only to letters it received, franked mail costs would have 
been only $12.4 million, saving $18.6 million or 60 percent from actual 
mail costs.
  In addition, use of the frank increases cyclically during every 
election year. During the 103d Congress, the House spent $24 million in 
1993, and $42 million in 1994. The 104th Congress has narrowed this gap 
in total spending, but the irresistible temptation for individual 
Members facing tough re-election campaigns to use their franking perk 
extensively in election years remains.
  That is why I am introducing this bill today to further improve our 
franked mail system. It creates a separate account to fund mass mail, 
and bans transfers of funds into the mass mail account. It bans mass 
mailings in election years. It tightens the definition of mass mailings 
to include mailings over 250 pieces, excluding solicited responses and 
town meeting notices. And it statutorily reduces the funding for 
franked mail to a maximum level equivalent to the one mailing per 
address.
  By making statutory changes, this bill will make sure that future 
Congresses don't get off track and undermine the franking reforms we've 
made in recent years. I hope many of my colleagues will join me in 
cosponsoring this important piece of legislation.

            Franked Mail Reform--Section-by-Section Summary


               Section 2--Official Mass Mailing Allowance

       (1) Create a separate account to fund mass mail. Currently, 
     mass mail is funded out of the same account as constituent 
     response mail. Under the bill, expenditures on mass mail 
     would be identified under a new and separate Official Mass 
     Mail Account.
       (2) Limit the funds available for mass mail. The bill 
     limits funding of mass mail to no more than \1/2\ of the 
     total mail allowance. Funding of the Official Mass Mail 
     Account could not exceed funding of the Official Mail 
     Account.
       (3 & 4) Ban transfers of funds into the Official Mass Mail 
     Account.
       (5) Ban mass mailings in election years. Mass mail would 
     not be allowed in election years until after the general 
     election. This prohibition does not include direct response 
     mail, federal publications, town meeting notices, 
     communications with the media, and correspondence with other 
     Members of Congress, Federal, State or local government 
     officials. It also does not include mailings which relate to 
     an emergency or disaster declared by the President, as long 
     as the mailing is sent within 60 days and the mailing relates 
     solely to the emergency or disaster.
       (6) Commission Approval mass mailings. Require the 
     Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards to approve mass 
     mail.
       (7) Public Disclosure of Member expenditures. Require the 
     quarterly Report of the Clerk to include the cost and number 
     of mass mailings sent by each Member of the House. The 
     current Report documents total spending on franked mail only.
       Public inspection of mass mailings. Require the Commission 
     on Congressional Mailing Standards to make available to the 
     public for inspection and photocopying samples of mass mail, 
     town meeting notices, and unsolicited mail in excess of 50 
     pieces. Recent rules changes have allowed watchdog groups and 
     other citizens greater access than in the past, and allow 
     photocopies to be made, but this should be put into statute.
       (8) Strengthen definition of mass mailing. The definition 
     of mass mail would include

[[Page E1700]]

     mailings over 250 pieces, excluding solicited responses, 
     federal publications, town meeting notices, communications to 
     other Members of Congress, Federal, State or local government 
     officials, and news releases to the media. An exemption is 
     also provided for a single follow-up to any direct responses, 
     if it is made before the end of the Congress in which 
     the direct response was made, and occurs within six weeks 
     after any significant congressional action. Under current 
     law, mailings are defined as 500 pieces or more, which 
     allows members to mail thousands of letters in up to 499 
     piece bundles of mail within days of an election.
        Clarify definition of town meeting notice. A town meeting 
     notice relates solely to a notice, 5\1/2\  x  
     8 or smaller, of the time and place at which 
     a Member or Members' staff will be available to meet with 
     constituents regarding legislative issues or problems with 
     federal programs. The notice cannot include more than 3 
     references to the Member, and cannot include a picture, 
     sketch, or other likeness of the Member.


 Section 3--Provisions Relating to the Members' Official Mail Allowance

       (a) Reduce the funding available for franked mail to a 
     maximum level equivalent to one mailing per address. The 
     total of the funding allowed for the Official Mail Account 
     and the Official Mass Mail Account would be equivalent to a 
     level of 1 first class mailing per district address each 
     year. Funding of the Official Mail Account would be limited 
     to a level of \1/2\ the district addresses at first class 
     rates (the Mass Mail Account could be funded at a level no 
     greater than the Official Mail Account).
       (b) Ban transfers of funds into the Official Mass Mail 
     Account. The bill would prohibit transfers of funds into the 
     Official Mass Mail Account. Funds could be transferred out of 
     the Official Mass Mail Account into the Official Mail 
     Account.


                       Section 4--Effective Date

       The bill would take effect the first session of Congress 
     after the date of enactment.

     

                          ____________________