Congressional Liaison Offices of Selected Federal Agencies

Audrey Celeste Crane-Hirsch
Information Research Specialist

This list of about 200 congressional liaison offices is intended to help congressional offices in placing telephone calls and addressing correspondence to government agencies. In each case, the information was supplied by the agency itself and is current as of the date of publication. Entries are arranged alphabetically in four sections: legislative branch; judicial branch; executive branch; and agencies, boards, and commissions.

Specific telephone numbers for correspondence, publications, and fax transmissions have been provided for each applicable agency. When using fax, it is important to include the entire mailing address on a cover sheet, as many of the listed fax machines are not directly located in the liaison offices.

A number of agency listings include an e-mail address. When e-mailing agencies please remember to include your name, affiliation, phone number, and return address, to ensure a speedy response. Users should be aware that e-mail is not a confidential means of transmission.


Date of Report: April 19, 2013
Number of Pages: 39
Order Number: 98-446
Price: $29.95

To Order:

98-446.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, 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.

Congressional Franking Privilege: Background and Recent Legislation

Matthew Eric Glassman
Analyst on the Congress

The congressional franking privilege, which dates from 1775, allows Members of Congress to transmit mail matter under their signature without postage. Congress, through legislative branch appropriations, reimburses the U.S. Postal Service for the franked mail it handles. Use of the frank is regulated by federal law, House and Senate rules, and committee regulations. Reform efforts during the past 25 years have reduced overall franking expenditures in both election and non-election years. Even-numbered-year franking expenditures have been reduced by almost 80% from $113.4 million in FY1988 to $24.8 million in FY2012, while odd-numbered-year franking expenditures have been reduced by over 85% from $89.5 million in FY1989 to $12.8 million in FY2011. House mail costs have decreased from a high of $77.9 million in FY1988 to $23.3 million in FY2012. The Senate has dramatically reduced its costs, from $43.6 million in FY1984 to $1.5 million in FY2012.

No legislation has been introduced during the 113th Congress to alter the franking privilege.

During the 112th Congress, one piece of legislation was introduced that would have altered the franking privilege for former Speakers of the House. S. 3528 would have repealed the authorization providing franking privileges to former Speakers of the House.

During the 111th Congress, two pieces of legislation were introduced that would have altered the franking privilege for Members. H.R. 5151 would have restricted Representatives’ use of the frank to documents transmitted under the official letterhead used for the Member’s stationary. H.R. 2056 would have prohibited Senators and Representatives from sending mass mailings during a period starting 90 days prior to a primary and ending on the day of the general election for any election in which the Member is a candidate for reelection.

During the 110th Congress, five pieces of legislation were introduced to alter the franking privilege for Members. One bill would have required that all pieces of mail sent in a mass mailing include a statement indicating the cost of producing and mailing the mass mailing. Another bill would have prohibited mass mailings in the form of newsletters, questionnaires, or congratulatory notices. Three bills would have prohibited Senators and Representatives from sending mass mailings during a period starting 90 days prior to a primary and ending on the day of the general election for any election in which the Member is a candidate for reelection.

This report will be updated as legislative action warrants. See also CRS Report RL34188, Congressional Official Mail Costs, by Matthew Eric Glassman; and CRS Report RL34274, Franking Privilege: Historical Development and Options for Change, by Matthew Eric Glassman.


Date of Report: April 10, 2013
Number of Pages: 9
Order Number: RS22771
Price: $19.95

To Order:

RS22771.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, 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.

Procedural Analysis of Private Laws Enacted: 1986-2013

Christopher M. Davis
Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process

Between 1986 and 2013 (99th-113th Congresses), 170 private laws were enacted. As of this writing, no private laws have been enacted in the 113th Congress (2013-2014). Most private laws during this period dealt with immigration issues or claims against the government. Of these measures, 65% originated in the House, 9% had cosponsors, and 23% had companion bills. Most were enacted without amendment or need to resolve differences with the other house. This report examines the broad distinctions among these measures in terms of their subject matter, introduction, sponsorship and cosponsorship, referral, method of consideration, amendment, and reconciling of differences between the chambers’ versions of the bill.


Date of Report: April 9, 2013
Number of Pages: 10
Order Number: RS22450
Price: $29.95

To Order:

RS22450.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, 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.

How Legislation Is Brought to the House Floor: A Snapshot of Parliamentary Practice in the 112th Congress (2011-2012)

Christopher M. Davis
Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process

House of Representatives has several different parliamentary procedures through which it can bring legislation to the chamber floor. Which of these will be used in a given situation depends on many factors, including the type of measure being considered, its cost, the amount of political or policy controversy surrounding it, and the degree to which Members want to debate it and propose amendments. This report provides a snapshot of the forms and origins of measures that, according to the Legislative Information System of the U.S. Congress (LIS), received action on the House floor in the 112th Congress (2011-2012) and the parliamentary procedures used to bring them up for initial House consideration.

In the 112th Congress, 888 pieces of legislation received floor action in the House of Representatives. Of these, 602 were bills or joint resolutions and 286 were simple or concurrent resolutions, a breakdown between lawmaking and non-lawmaking legislative forms of approximately 68% to 32%. Of these 888 measures, 783 originated in the House and 105 originated in the Senate.

During the same period, 53% of all measures receiving initial House floor action came before the chamber under the Suspension of the Rules procedure; 23% came to the floor as business “privileged” under House rules and precedents; 15% were raised by a special rule reported by the Committee on Rules and adopted by the House; and 7% came up by the unanimous consent of Members. Seven measures, representing approximately 1% of legislation receiving House floor action in the 112th Congress, were processed under the procedures associated with the call of the Private Calendar.

When only lawmaking forms of legislation (bills and joint resolutions) are counted, 72% of such measures receiving initial House floor action in the 112th Congresses came before the chamber under the Suspension of the Rules procedure; 21% were raised by a special rule reported by the Committee on Rules and adopted by the House; and 5% came up by the unanimous consent of Members. Around 1% of lawmaking forms of legislation received House floor action via the call of the Private Calendar and an even smaller fraction of lawmaking measures were “privileged” under House rules.

The party sponsorship of legislation receiving initial floor action in the 112th Congress varied based on the procedure used to raise the legislation on the chamber floor. Sixty-seven percent of the measures considered under the Suspension of the Rules procedure were sponsored by majority party Members. All but three of the 137 measures brought before the House under the terms of a special rule reported by the House Committee on Rules and adopted by the House were sponsored by majority party Members.


Date of Report: April 15, 2013
Number of Pages: 12
Order Number: R43039
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R43039.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, 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.

The President’s Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP): Issues for Congress

John F. Sargent Jr.
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy

Dana A. Shea
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy

Congress established the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) through the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-282). The act states that “The primary function of the OSTP Director is to provide, within the Executive Office of the President [EOP], advice on the scientific, engineering, and technological aspects of issues that require attention at the highest level of Government.” Further, “The Office shall serve as a source of scientific and technological analysis and judgment for the President with respect to major policies, plans, and programs of the Federal Government.”

The President nominates the OSTP Director, and he is subject to confirmation by the Senate. In many Administrations, the President has concurrently appointed the OSTP Director to the position of Assistant to the President for Science and Technology Policy (APST), a position which allows for the provision of confidential advice to the President on matters of science and technology. President Obama both appointed John Holdren as Assistant to the President for Science and Technology (APST) and nominated him as OSTP Director, a position to which the Senate confirmed him. While Congress can require the OSTP Director to testify, the APST may decline requests to testify on the basis of separation of powers and/or executive privilege. The APST manages the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), an interagency body established by Executive Order 12881 that coordinates science and technology (S&T) policy across the federal government. The APST also co-chairs the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), a council of external advisors established by Executive Order 13539 that provides advice to the President.

In FY2011, Congress sought to restrict OSTP from engaging in certain activities with China or any Chinese-owned company by prohibiting the use of appropriated funds for these activities (P.L. 112-10). The OSTP expended a portion of its FY2011 appropriation to engage in activities with China that Congress sought to proscribe. The Department of Justice and OSTP asserted that this congressional effort infringed upon the President’s constitutional authority to conduct foreign diplomacy. In contrast, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) concluded that OSTP violated the Antideficiency Act, though it did not speak to the constitutional issue. Congress enacted a similar restriction for FY2012 (P.L. 112-55) and FY2013 (P.L. 113-6) and may continue its interest in the debate over its ability to restrict the activities of OSTP.

Among other issues Congress may wish to consider are the need for science advice within the EOP; the title, rank, and responsibilities of the OSTP Director; the policy foci of OSTP; the funding and staffing for OSTP; the roles and functions of OSTP and NSTC in setting federal science and technology policy; and the status and influence of PCAST. Some in the S&T community support raising the OSTP Director to cabinet rank, contending that this would imbue the position with more influence within the EOP. Others have proposed that the OSTP Director play a greater role in federal agency coordination, priority-setting, and budget allocation. Both the Administration and Congress have identified areas of policy focus for OSTP staff, raising questions of policy setting and oversight. Some experts say NSTC has insufficient authority over federal agencies engaged in science and technology activities and PCAST insufficient influence on S&T policy; they question the overall coordination of federal science and technology activities. Finally, some in the scientific community support increasing the authority of the OSTP Director in the budget process so as to more strongly influence federal investment in science.


Date of Report: April 12, 2013
Number of Pages: 47
Order Number: RL34736
Price: $29.95

To Order:

RL34736.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, 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.