IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 690 

Raising a question of the privileges of the House. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 29, 2009 

Mr. BOEHNER submitted the following resolution; which was laid on the table 

RESOLUTION 

Raising a question of the privileges of the House. 

Whereas page 5 of the ‘‘Regulations on the Use of the CONGRESSIONAL FRANK By Members of the House of 

Representatives’’ states, ‘‘It is the policy of the Congress 

that the privilege of sending mail as franked mail shall 

be established under this section in order to assist and 

expedite the conduct of the official business, activities 

and duties of the Congress of the United States. It is the 

intent of the Congress that such official business, activities and duties cover all matters which directly or indirectly pertain to the legislative process or to any congressional representative functions generally, or to the functioning, working, or operating of the Congress and the 

performance of official duties in connection therewith, 

and shall include, but not be limited to, the conveying of 

information to the public, the requesting of the views of 

the public, or the views and information of other authorVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:14 Jul 30, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HR690.LTH HR690

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 690 LTH 

ity of government, as a guide or a means of assistance 

in the performance of those functions.’’; 

Whereas clause 5 of rule XXIV of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives provides, ‘‘Before making a mass 

mailing, a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner 

shall submit a sample or description of the mail matter 

involved to the House Commission on Congressional 

Mailing Standards for an advisory opinion as to whether 

the proposed mailing is in compliance with applicable 

provisions of law, rule, or regulation.’’; 

Whereas the House Commission on Congressional Mailing 

Standards, authorized in Public Law 91–191, is commonly referred to as the ‘‘Franking Commission’’; 

Whereas the Democratic staff director and Republican staff 

director of the Franking Commission have served in their 

respective positions for more than a decade and report to 

the Democratic and Republican members of the Franking 

Commission, respectively; 

Whereas during the 111th Congress the members of the 

Franking Commission are Representatives Susan Davis 

(D–CA), chairwoman; Rep. Dan Lungren (R–CA), ranking Republican member; Rep. Donna Edwards (D–MD), 

Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R–CA), Rep. Brad Sherman (D– 

CA) and Rep. Tom Price (R–GA); 

Whereas the aforementioned Franking Commission advisory 

opinions required for Members seeking approval to send 

mass mailings, or their electronic equivalents, are routinely signed on behalf of the Commission by its Democratic and Republican staff directors or their designees; 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 690 LTH 

Whereas no Member may receive Franking Commission approval without signatures from both majority and minority staff; 

Whereas the Commission’s Democratic staff director has been 

permitted by the Commission’s Democratic Members to 

abuse her position during the current Congress by willfully and knowingly applying different standards to material submitted for Franking Commission approval by Republican Members than she applies to material submitted 

by Democratic Members; 

Whereas, on July 27, 2009, the Commission’s Democratic 

staff director refused to approve a mailing proposed by 

Representative Joe Barton of Texas which included the 

words ‘‘Democrat majority’’, but indicated she would approve the mailing if Representative Barton instead substituted the words ‘‘congressional majority’’, yet on August 3, 2006, the same Democratic staff director signed 

a Franking Commission approval document for a mailing 

issued by then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi that included the following sentence, ‘‘But too many here and 

across our nation are paying the price for the Republican 

Congressional majority’s special interest agenda . . .’’ 

Whereas the Democratic staff director has refused to grant 

permission to Republican Members wishing to provide 

their constituents with copies of a chart intended to illustrate in graphic form many of the provisions of the 

Democrats’ proposed health care legislation; 

Whereas charts similar in form and general purpose have for 

many years been approved routinely by the Commission’s 

Democratic staff director in mailings produced by Members on both sides of the aisle; 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
4 

•HRES 690 LTH 

Whereas, on December 12, 1993, the Franking Commission 

granted approval to Rep. David Levy of New York to disseminate a similar chart, intended to illustrate graphically the provisions of comprehensive health care legislation proposed by the Clinton Administration; 

Whereas the Commission’s Democratic staff director has refused to approve requests by Republican Members to informally characterize certain features of the Democrats’ 

pending health care proposal as ‘‘government run health 

care’’ but has approved requests by Democratic Members 

to informally characterize the same aspects of the bill as 

‘‘the public option’’; 

Whereas the Commission’s Democratic staff director has refused to approve more than twenty requests by Republican Members to use the phrase ‘‘cap and tax’’ to describe a Democratic proposal to reduce carbon emissions 

by imposing new fees, taxes and higher costs on American consumers and businesses; 

Whereas a search for the term ‘‘cap and tax’’ on the Google 

internet search engine yielded at least 4,478,000 appearances of this commonly used phrase; 

Whereas an article in the April 27, 2009, edition of ‘‘Politico’’ newspaper quoted the most senior Member of the 

House, Democratic Representative John Dingell of Michigan, the former chairman of the House Committee on 

Energy and Commerce, as saying, ‘‘Nobody in this country realizes that cap and trade is a tax, and it’s a great 

big one.’’; 

Whereas the Commission’s Democratic staff director has dismissed the proposed descriptive term, ‘‘cap and tax’’ as 

an informal and inappropriate characterization of the legVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:14 Jul 30, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HR690.LTH HR690

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
5 

•HRES 690 LTH 

islation, while at the same time granting approval to 

Democratic Members seeking to use the phrase ‘‘cap and 

trade’’ to informally and inappropriately characterize the 

same bill; 

Whereas the Commission’s Democratic staff director has refused to approve material submitted by Republican Members seeking to convey to the public those Members’ concern about substantial job losses expected to result if the 

Democrats’ proposed national energy tax is enacted, 

while at the same time approving mailings submitted by 

Democratic Members informing the public about large 

numbers of new jobs the Democrats claim will be created 

by the same legislation; 

Whereas the Democratic staff director’s actions have prompted a steady stream of media reports describing a climate 

of partisan censorship imposed on the House by the 

Democratic majority; 

Whereas an article in the July 23, 2009, edition of Roll Call 

newspaper stated, ‘‘A dispute over the right of House Republicans to use the chamber’s official franking service to 

send a mailer critical of Democratic health care plans has 

escalated beyond the Franking Commission to ‘high levels 

on the Democratic side,’ Franking Commission member 

Rep. Dan Lungren (R–CA) said at a Thursday press 

conference. Asked whether he believed the matter had 

been referred to Rep. Pelosis (D–CA) office, Lungren, 

the ranking member of the House Administration Committee, said, ‘All I’ve been told is that its above the 

Franking Commission and that it appears to be above 

our committee, so I don’t know where you go after 

that’.’’; 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
6 

•HRES 690 LTH 

Whereas by permitting the Commission’s Democratic staff director to carry out her duties in a partisan and unfair 

manner, the Democratic Members of the Franking Commission have brought discredit on the House; and 

Whereas clause 1 of rule XXXIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, also known as the Code of Official 

Conduct, provides ‘‘A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House shall behave 

at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on 

the House’’: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House views with disapproval the 

2 failure of the Democratic Members of the Franking Com3 mission to ensure that the Commission’s Democratic staff 

4 carries out its important responsibilities in a professional, 

5 fair, and impartial manner. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS