Congressional Member Organizations: Their Purpose and Activities, History, and Formation

Robert Jay Dilger
Senior Specialist in American National Government

There are 694 informal Member organizations listed in the Congressional Yellow Book or registered with the Committee on House Administration. According to self-reported information contained in the Congressional Yellow Book, the House’s 619 informal Member organizations had from 1 to 212 members, with an average membership of 25, and the Senate’s 75 informal Member organizations had from 1 to 74 members, with an average membership of 13. On average, House Members report membership in 35 informal Member organizations and Senators report membership in 13. Of these 694 informal organizations, 322 are registered with the Committee on House Administration as congressional Member organizations (CMO).

The term “congressional Member organization” refers to a group of Members who join together in pursuit of common legislative objectives and register the organization with the Committee on House Administration. In many instances, Members assign personal staff (including shared employees) under the Member’s control to assist the CMO in carrying out its legislative objectives. Any informal group of House Members who wish to use personal staff to work on behalf of an informal Member group, discuss their membership in the group in official communications, or mention their membership on their official House website must register the group with the Committee on House Administration as a CMO. There are no registration requirements in the Senate.

Informal Member organizations that are not registered with the Committee on House Administration (including those in the Senate) are called “informal Member groups.” The term “informal Member organization” is used when referring to both CMOs and informal Member groups. This report focuses on CMOs, primarily because they tend to be more long-lasting and influential than informal Member groups.

CMOs exist to affect public policy, either directly through policy advocacy for a region or an issue, or indirectly by attracting media attention, or through the socialization and orientation of its Members. Nearly all CMOs serve as a forum for the exchange of information. Many hold regular Member or staff meetings, either weekly, monthly, or quarterly depending on the legislative calendar, to exchange information and develop legislative strategy. Many also invite outside speakers and groups to make presentations to the CMO’s Members.

This report examines the purpose and activities of CMOs and the reasons Members form them. It also identifies and describes seven CMO types, and it provides an overview of the historical development of informal Member organizations since the first Congress, focusing on their regulation in the House by the Committee on House Oversight/Committee on House Administration, the rise and fall of legislative service organizations, and the House’s decision in 1995 to issue regulations for establishing CMOs and governing their behavior. It concludes with a step-by-step guide for House Members and staff who might be interested in forming a CMO. Many of the steps in the guide may be of interest to Senators and their staff who are considering forming an informal Member group in the Senate.


Date of Report: July 18, 2011
Number of Pages: 29
Order Number: R40683
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

House Rules Changes Affecting the Congressional Budget Process Made at the Beginning of the 112th Congress

Bill Heniff Jr.
Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process

On January 5, 2011, the House agreed to H.Res. 5, adopting the Standing Rules for the 112th Congress, including several changes affecting the congressional budget process.

H.Res. 5 made six changes to the House Standing Rules affecting the congressional budget process: 

• amended clause 10 of Rule XXI (now referred to as the CutGo rule) to prohibit the consideration of legislation that would cause a net increase in mandatory spending, replacing the former House PAYGO rule, which required that legislation affecting either mandatory spending or revenue not increase the deficit; 
• repealed Rule XXVIII, the so-called “Gephardt rule,” which had provided for the automatic engrossment of a House joint resolution changing the statutory limit on the public debt when Congress had completed action on the congressional budget resolution; 
• added a new clause 4 to Rule XXIX to provide that the House Budget Committee chair may provide “authoritative guidance,” on behalf of the full Committee, about the impact of legislation on the levels of spending and revenues; 
• amended clause 3 of Rule XXI to prohibit the consideration of general appropriations measures that provided spending authority derived from the Highway Trust Fund for purposes not authorized for the highway or mass transit categories, replacing the former rule that effectively guaranteed transportation funding at the level set forth in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy of Users; 
• amended clause 7 of Rule XXI to prohibit the consideration of a budget resolution containing budget reconciliation directives that would have the net effect of increasing mandatory spending, replacing the former rule that prohibited budget reconciliation directives that would increase the deficit; and 
• repealed clause 11 of Rule XVIII, which allowed amendments striking unfunded intergovernmental mandates on the House floor, unless a special rule adopted by the House specifically prohibited such action. 

In addition, H.Res. 5 includes several separate orders affecting the congressional budget process that will apply during the 112th Congress. Four separate orders renew orders adopted at the beginning of several previous Congresses; these orders address the application of certain points of order under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and strengthen the enforcement of allocations under Section 302(b) of the Budget Act. Five separate orders establish certain procedural provisions for the purposes of budget enforcement in the absence of Congress completing action on the FY2011 budget resolution in 2010. One separate order creates a limit on long-term mandatory spending legislation. Two separate orders allow the chair of the House Committee on the Budget to exempt the budgetary effects of certain legislation in providing estimates of such legislation for purposes of budget enforcement under the Budget Act and House Rules, as well as for purposes of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010. Finally, one separate order effectively prevents the consideration of amendments to a general appropriations bill that propose to restore spending that had been cut by a previously adopted amendment.


Date of Report: July 20, 2011
Number of Pages: 29
Order Number: R41926
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

A Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment: Background and Congressional Options

James V. Saturno
Section Research Manager

Megan Suzanne Lynch
Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process

One of the most persistent political issues facing Congress in recent decades is whether to require that the budget of the United States be in balance. Although a balanced federal budget has long been held as a political ideal, the accumulation of large deficits in recent years has heightened concern that some action to require a balance between revenues and expenditures may be necessary.

The debate over a balanced budget measure actually consists of several interrelated debates. Most prominently, the arguments of proponents have focused on the economy and the possible harm resulting from consistently large deficits and a growing federal debt. Another issue involves whether such a requirement should be statutory or made part of the Constitution. Some proponents of balanced budgets oppose a constitutional amendment, fearing that it would prove to be too inflexible for dealing with future circumstances.

Opponents of a constitutional amendment often focus on the difficulties of implementing or enforcing any amendment. Their concerns have been numerous and varied. How would such a requirement affect the balance of power between the President and Congress? Between the federal courts and Congress? Although most proponents would prefer to establish a balanced budget requirement as part of the Constitution, some advocates have suggested using the untried process provided under Article V of the Constitution for a constitutional convention as an alternative to a joint resolution passed by two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress. Although the inclusion of a balanced budget amendment as part of the congressional agenda has muted this debate in recent years, proposals for a convention are still possible, and raise concerns that one might open the way to an unpredictable series of reforms. The last American constitutional convention convened in May 1787 and produced the current constitution.

These are also questions that will be raised and considered by Congress concerning the provisions that should be included in such a measure as it sifts through its options. Congress ultimately will decide whether consideration should be given to a constitutional requirement for a balanced budget; and if it decides to proceed, it will need to decide whether there should be exceptions to the requirement, or if it should include provisions such as a separate capital budget or a limitation on expenditures or revenues. For example, as reported from the House Judiciary Committee, H.J.Res. 1 in the 112th Congress includes provisions that would require a super majority to allow a budget with outlays in excess of receipts, to allow outlays to exceed 18% of the “economic output” of the United States regardless of whether the budget were balanced, to increase the debt limit, or to increase revenues.

This report provides an overview of the issues and options that have been raised during prior consideration of proposals for a balanced budget constitutional amendment.


Date of Report: July 20, 2011
Number of Pages: 47
Order Number: R41907
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2011 Appropriations

Garrett Hatch, Coordinator
Analyst in American National Government

The Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) appropriations bill includes funding for the Department of the Treasury, the Executive Office of the President, the judiciary, the District of Columbia, and 26 independent agencies. Among the independent agencies funded by the bill are the Small Business Administration, the Office of Personnel Management, and the United States Postal Service.

The FSGG FY2010 appropriations were provided through P.L. 111-117, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010. P.L. 111-117 provided $46.265 billion for FSGG agencies in FY2010. In addition, P.L. 111-80 provided an additional $169 million for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission—which is under the jurisdiction of the FSGG Subcommittee in the Senate but not in the House—for a total of $46.434 billion for FSGG agencies in FY2010.

On February 1, 2010, President Obama issued his FY2011 FSGG budget request for $48.219 billion, an increase of $1.785 billion over FY2010 appropriations. On July 29, 2010, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved S. 3677, which would provide FSGG agencies with $48.296 billion for FY2011, an increase of $1.861 billion above FY2010 appropriations. On February 19, 2011, the House passed H.R. 1, which would provide FSGG agencies with $43.298 billion for FY2011, $3.136 billion below FY2010 enacted appropriations.

On April 15, 2011, President Obama signed H.R. 1473, the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011, into law (P.L. 112-10). The bill provides FSGG agencies with $44.745 billion for FY2011, a decrease of $1.69 billion from FY2010 enacted levels and $3.47 billion less that the President’s FY2011 request. FY2011 enacted figures may be revised when further details become available.


Date of Report: July 11, 2011
Number of Pages: 24
Order Number: R41594
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Fairness Doctrine: History and Constitutional Issues

Kathleen Ann Ruane
Legislative Attorney

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) that required broadcast licensees to cover issues of public importance and to do so in a fair manner. Issues of public importance were not limited to political campaigns. Nuclear plant construction, workers’ rights, and other issues of focus for a particular community could gain the status of an issue that broadcasters were required to cover. Therefore, the Fairness Doctrine was distinct from the so-called “equal time” rule, which requires broadcasters to grant equal time to qualified candidates for public office, because the Fairness Doctrine applied to a much broader range of topics.

In 1987, after a period of study, the FCC repealed the Fairness Doctrine. The FCC found that the doctrine likely violated the free speech rights of broadcasters, led to less speech about issues of public importance over broadcast airwaves, and was no longer required because of the increase in competition among mass media. The repeal of the doctrine did not end the debate among lawmakers, scholars, and others about its constitutionality and impact on the availability of diverse information to the public.

The debate in Congress regarding whether to reinstate the doctrine continues today. Recently, Chairman Upton of the House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology sent a letter to FCC Chairman Genachowski urging the Commission to remove the regulations relating to the Fairness Doctrine from the Code of Federal Regulations. Chairman Genachowski responded by reasserting his lack of support for the Fairness Doctrine and agreeing to begin the process of repealing the regulations.

Any attempt to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine likely would be met with a constitutional challenge. Those opposing the doctrine would argue that it violates their First Amendment rights. In 1969, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine, but applied a lower standard of scrutiny to the First Amendment rights of broadcasters than it applies to other media. Since that decision, the Supreme Court’s reasoning for applying a lower constitutional standard to broadcasters’ speech has been questioned. Furthermore, when repealing the doctrine, the FCC found that, as the law stood in 1987, the Fairness Doctrine violated the First Amendment even when applying the lower standard of scrutiny to the doctrine. No reviewing court has examined the validity of the agency’s findings on the constitutional issue. Therefore, whether a newly instituted Fairness Doctrine would survive constitutional scrutiny remains an open question.


Date of Report: July 13, 2011
Number of Pages: 17
Order Number: R40009
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.