Congressional Member Organizations (CMOs) and Informal Member Groups: Their Purpose and Activities, History, and Formation

Summary: This report examines the historical development and contemporary role of Congressional Member Organizations (CMOs) in the House, as well as informal Member groups in the House, Senate, and across the chambers. Commonly, these groups are referred to as caucuses, but they will be referred to collectively as informal Member organizations in this report to avoid confusion with official party caucuses. Some examples of groups that modern observers would consider informal Member organizations date back as far as the early 1800s, but the number of groups has grown substantially since the 1990s.

Summary: Members of the House and Senate may form these groups and participate in their activities for a variety of reasons. Often the objectives of these groups coincide with Members' policy objectives or representational considerations. These groups enable Members to exchange information and ideas with colleagues, and can facilitate interactions among Members who might not otherwise have opportunities to work with one another.

Summary: Some groups may be eligible to register with the Committee on House Administration as a Congressional Member Organization (CMO), which enables House Members to utilize some personal office resources in support of CMO legislative activities. CMOs may include Senators among their members, but the Senate has no registration process for Member groups. 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.

Summary: Since the 1970s, the House has issued various regulations governing informal Member organizations. This history provides some additional background on existing CMO regulations and can provide further insights about some of the perceived benefits and shortcomings of these groups. To increase accountability and transparency in an era when Member groups had greater access to institutional resources, the House created its first regulations in 1979 for Member groups registered with the Committee on House Administration as Legislative Service Organizations (LSOs). In 1995, LSOs were abolished and CMOs were created, with limited abilities to use official resources in support of Member groups. Beginning in 2015, the Committee on House Administration created a designation of Eligible Congressional Member Organizations (ECMOs) for certain CMOs, which enables Members to assign personal office staff to work on behalf of an ECMO; four CMOs in the 115th Congress were designated as ECMOs.

Summary: In recent years, the number of CMOs and informal Member groups has increased, more than doubling from the 108th Congress (350) to the 115th Congress (854). This increase has taken place even though (with limited exceptions in certain specific circumstances) House Members can no longer use their Members' Representational Allowance (MRA) to directly support a CMO or informal Member group as an independent entity; provide congressional office space for these organizations; use the congressional frank to support their activities; or accept goods, funds, or services from private organizations or individuals to support their activities. Despite these limits imposed on the options available to House Members to support informal Member organizations, CMOs and other informal Member organizations have retained an ongoing role in the congressional policymaking process. Their influence has endured largely because many Members continue to consider their participation in informal Member groups and CMOs as advantageous in achieving their legislative and representational goals.

Several hundred informal Member organizations exist within the House of Representatives, Senate, or between both the chambers; these organizations typically reflect Members' shared legislative objectives or representational interests. These groups may commonly be described as congressional caucuses, working groups, or task forces, but in this report, will be identified, collectively, as informal Member organizations , to avoid confusion with official party caucuses. An additional distinction between informal Member organizations may be drawn. In the House of Representatives, some groups may register with the Committee on House Administration to form a Congressional Member Organization (CMO). CMOs registered with the Committee on House Administration can include groups exclusively for House Members or bicameral groups that include House Members and Senators. Informal Member organizations that are not registered with the Committee on House Administration are called informal Member groups ; these include groups exclusive to the Senate, which does not have any formal registration process for informal Member organizations. These distinctions are described in greater detail in the sections below.

The Appendix provides some considerations for House Members seeking to form a CMO. Some of these considerations that are not exclusive to the House process, such as determining a group's objective and possible membership, may also be of interest to Senators or House Members seeking to form an informal Member group.

There are two types of informal Member organizations: Congressional Member Organizations (CMOs) and informal Member groups.

Congressional Member Organizations (CMOs)

The term C ongressional Member O rganization refers to a group of Members that is registered with the Committee on House Administration to support a common legislative objective. CMOs may be composed of House Members exclusively, or they may include House Members and Senators. The requirements to register a group as a CMO, as well as guidelines governing how official resources under the control of the Member may be available to use for CMO activities, are provided on the website of the Committee on House Administration.

To become a CMO, the Committee on House Administration requires that at least one of the officers associated with the group must be a Member of the House. A group seeking identification as a CMO must also register electronically with the Committee on House Administration by submitting a letter on official letterhead containing the name of the CMO, its statement of purpose, names of its officers, and contact information for staff designated to work on issues related to the CMO. If a group's application complies with the Committee on House Administration's guidelines for CMOs and is approved by the committee, the group will be included in the online list of registered CMOs for the current Congress. A registered CMO may request use of internal House mail, House intranet site, and a postbox at House Postal Operations. A CMO must reregister with the Committee on House Administration in every Congress to maintain its status as such.

House Members may have personal office staff (including shared employees) assist a CMO with its legislative objectives. CMOs are not employing authorities, nor do they have separate corporate or legal identities. House Members may also utilize some official resources for CMO activities, subject to limitations established by the Committee on House Administration. CMOs cannot be assigned office space, host a separate website, send franked mail, or use official funds to print or pay for stationery. The Members' Representational Allowance (MRA) may not be used to directly support a CMO as an independent entity, nor can individual Members use their franking privilege on behalf of a CMO. Members may use official resources for communications related to a CMO, to prepare materials related to CMO issues for dissemination, or to publicize CMO issues on a section of their official House website. Neither CMOs nor individual Members may accept funds, goods, or services from private individuals or organizations to support the CMO. Members may, however, use personal funds to support a CMO.

House Members who join CMOs must conduct their activities in accordance with applicable provisions in law, the House Ethics Manual , Members' Congressional Handbook , and Rules of the House (including House Rule XXIII, the House Code of Official Conduct). Some additional guidance addressing CMO and informal Member group funding is available on the House Committee on Ethics website. In general, unless otherwise specified, the same regulations applicable to House Members as individuals also apply to their participation in CMOs. Members can contact the Committee on House Administration; the Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards (also known as the Franking Commission); and the Office of Advice and Education of the House Committee on Ethics for information and guidance. Additional regulations may apply to shared employees.

Eligible Congressional Member Organizations (ECMOs)

Beginning in the 114 th Congress, the House amended its rules to allow certain CMOs to be designated as E ligible Congressional Member Organizations (ECMOs). Members may assign personal office staff to work on behalf of an ECMO and transfer associated MRA funds for salaries and expenses for those employees to a dedicated House account administered by the ECMO. H.Res. 6 directs the Committee on House Administration to promulgate relevant regulations regarding the use of MRA funds, shared employees, and access of House services. To qualify for ECMO status, a group must have been a registered CMO in the preceding Congress, with shared employees from at least 15 House Member offices; register as a CMO in the 116 th Congress; designate a single House Member as administrator of the group; and have at least three House employees assigned to perform work on its behalf. The Committee on House Administration provides further information about the eligibility and disclosure requirements, registration process, and other regulations for ECMOs.

Informal Member Groups in the House and Senate

In addition to registered CMOs, informal Member groups exist in the House, Senate, and across the chambers. Some informal groups with House Members may be loosely organized associations of like-minded Members; others may be more structured and operate similarly to CMOs but are not registered with the Committee on House Administration. In general, the rules and regulations that apply to House Members as individuals apply to their participation in informal Member groups, including applicable provisions in law, the House Ethics Manual , Members' Congressional Handbook , and Rules of the House (including House Rule XXIII, the House Code of Official Conduct). The Committee on House Administration and House Committee on Ethics can provide further guidance for Members.

The Senate does not have a registration process for informal Member groups. Historically, Senate informal groups have drawn upon resources available to Senators for materials and services, without dedicating any additional funding to the organization. Because of their traditional, nonofficial status and informal nature, specific regulation of such groups in the Senate has not been deemed necessary. As in the House, informal groups of Senators are collectively subject to the same regulations applicable to Senators as individuals as indicated in the Senate Ethics Manual , Rules of the Senate, and the Senate Code of Official Conduct. Further guidance may be available to Senators from the Senate Committee on Ethics and Committee on Rules and Administration. Separate regulations expressly recognizing them and prescribing their operations have never been implemented in the Senate.

Number of Informal Member Organizations Over Time

The number of identified informal Member organizations since the 92 nd Congress (1971-1972) is provided in Table 1 , which shows how an increase began in the 1970s and has increased more markedly since the 1990s. The Committee on House Administration lists 518 registered CMOs for the 115 th Congress, which includes House-only organizations and some bicameral organizations. It is more challenging to tally the number of informal Member groups because they are not officially tracked by the House or Senate. Self-reported information from House Members' offices in the Congressional Yellow Book identifies an additional 158 groups, some of which may be House-only and some of which may be bicameral groups. Self-reported information from Senators' offices in the Congressional Yellow Book identifies 178 groups, some of which may be Senate-only and some of which may be bicameral groups.

Purpose of Informal Member Organizations

Informal Member organizations typically exist as forums to discuss ideas and potential activities related to public policy or representational considerations. Groups may engage in direct legislative advocacy for a particular issue or concern, provide opportunities to educate Members and staff on policy matters, or generate broader public awareness on these topics. Groups often hold regular Member or staff meetings to exchange information and develop legislative strategy. Many informal Member organizations also invite outside speakers and groups to make presentations to their Members. Some informal Member organizations may have a relatively narrow legislative interest or objective. Other groups may have a broader focus and address multiple issues of concern for a particular geographic region, economic sector, or generalized policy area.

Many Members view their participation in informal group or CMO activities as a means to realize both electoral and policy objectives. An informal Member organization can

be readily established as circumstances and issues warrant without first enacting legislation or changing House, Senate, or party rules; open or limit its membership as it deems necessary to accomplish its goals; expand Members' opportunities to specialize on issues because there is no limit on the number of groups that can exist or on the number of groups that a Member can join; serve as a vehicle for the resolution of issue and policy differences between committees, parties, or the two houses; provide an opportunity for a comprehensive and coordinated approach to issues over which committee jurisdiction is unclear or fragmented; conduct briefings and use other means to provide Members information and analysis on issues of interest; attract attention to issues that the group members believe need to be addressed; and enhance Members' relations and standing with particular constituencies.

In addition to the benefits that informal Member organizations may provide, some observers have noted certain limitations or disadvantages to these groups. Specifically, they have argued that informal Member organizations

have become so numerous that their significance has been diminished, as nearly every cause or issue has a Member organization; compete with the formal leadership and committee structure and functions; undermine or even impede the legislative process by further fragmenting the congressional policymaking process; may facilitate certain special interests in attaining undue attention in the legislative process; create a perception of conflict of interest for Members who may have formal legislative responsibilities within the same subject areas covered by the informal Member organization (i.e., by appearing to be an advocate and adjudicator of an issue at the same time); and present the possibility of Congress being viewed negatively by the public as overly influenced by special interests.

Ethical considerations have arisen related to the nature and extent of Member participation on governing bodies of outside, nonprofit, tax-exempt organizations with informal ties to CMOs, particularly with regard to Members' participation in fundraising for these outside foundations. Under the current House ethics rules, House Members are permitted to serve on the boards of certain outside groups, including nonprofit foundations and institutes, so long as they do not serve for compensation and their service does not conflict with a Member's general obligation to the public. House Members are also permitted to raise funds for certain nonprofit organizations, but they are prohibited from raising money for any organization that is "established or controlled by Members (or staff)" without receiving permission from the House Committee on Ethics.

Questions as to whether a nonprofit organization's activities are related to a Member's official duties can be directed to the House Committee on Ethics.

In addition to the distinction between CMOs and informal Member groups, informal Member organizations may be broadly categorized by the purpose of the group. In general, six categories can serve as a classification system for informal Member organizations, although some informal Member organizations may be difficult to fit into any category or may fit into multiple categories. The six categories of informal Member organizations are

1. intraparty (promoting the policy views of like-minded Members within a political party); 2. personal interest (typically focused on a broad, single concern, such as the environment or children, that is often under the jurisdiction of more than one committee); 3. industry (advocating the interests of a particular industry); 4. regional (championing the interests of a particular region); 5. state/district (advocating the interests of a particular state or district); and 6. national constituency (advocating the interests of particular groups of constituents, such as women, minorities, and veterans).

Members who join intraparty Member organizations, such as the Blue Dog Coalition and the Republican Study Committee, tend to use their membership as a forum to exchange information and develop legislative strategy with party colleagues who share their political ideology. They tend to work on a wide range of issues and "have been important factors in agenda setting" by attracting attention to issues. Personal interest Member organizations, such as the Congressional Diabetes Caucus and the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, tend to focus on increasing public and congressional awareness of issues, offer new solutions for addressing them, and attempt to influence the congressional agenda.

CMOs that focus on issues of interest to particular industries, such as the Congressional Automotive Caucus, Congressional Shipbuilding Caucus, and Congressional Steel Caucus, tend to attract Members who are strongly committed to promoting that industry's interests. Members often view their membership as a means to increase congressional awareness of the industry's concerns, develop legislative strategy, and signal to constituents that they are actively promoting their interests.

Regional CMOs, such as the Northeast-Midwest Congressional Coalition and Congressional Western Caucus, and state/district CMOs, such as the California Democratic Congressional Delegation, tend to focus on promoting legislative provisions that they believe will assist their region or state/district.

National constituency CMOs, such as the Congressional Black Caucus, Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and Congressional Hispanic Conference, tend to have broad concerns that often fall under the jurisdiction of more than one committee. In addition to engaging in a wide range of agenda-setting activities, such as testifying before congressional committees and drafting bills and amendments, national constituency CMOs are more likely than other CMOs to attempt to place issues on the legislative agenda. Members tend to join national constituency CMOs to raise public and congressional awareness of their issues, exchange information, and develop legislative strategy.

Historical Development of Informal Member Organizations

Since the earliest Congresses, Members have gathered to promote their mutual interests in ad hoc, informal settings, outside of the formal committee and political party systems. This section provides examples of some of these early groups, followed by the developments that shaped the modern system of informal Member organizations. Two key changes for informal Member organizations in the House are also discussed: the development of Legislative Service Organizations (LSOs), which operated from 1979 to 1994, and the creation of congressional Member organizations in 1995.

Examples of Early Informal Member Organizations

When Congress first convened in Washington, DC, many Members resided in local boardinghouses and spent considerable time discussing legislation and building coalitions after-hours with their colleagues who also resided in their house. Historians have noted that there was a close correlation in the voting records among those Members who boarded together, often forming boardinghouse voting blocs. In 1812, the efforts of two informal congressional groups, the War Hawks and the Invisibles, were instrumental in the declaration of war against Great Britain in the War of 1812. In 1833, several Members of Congress formed the Congressional Temperance Society to advocate abstinence from intoxicating beverages, and the group remained active until 1899. In the 1840s, the Abolitionist Group, an informal congressional group, worked in opposition to slavery.

Mid-20th Century Informal Member Organizations

One prominent Member group from the mid-20 th century was the Chowder and Marching Society, which was founded in 1949 by 15 Republican House Members, including future Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Gerald R. Ford. It was initially formed to oppose legislation providing monthly bonuses for war veterans, which the Members considered too costly. As its membership increased over time, it served as a somewhat exclusive social forum for leading Republican Members of Congress to discuss pending legislation and legislative strategy. In 1957, several freshman House Republicans formed the Acorns, which served both as a social group and as a forum to discuss legislative issues.

The Democratic Study Group (DSG), established in 1959, is considered by many observers to be the first modern informal Member organization. It was formed by moderate and liberal House Democrats to counter the influence of southern conservative Democrats who chaired many of the House's committees at the time. Forty Members attended its organizational meeting in 1959. Over time, the dues-paying membership of the DSG increased, ranging from 115 to 170 Members during the early 1970s, to around 225 during the mid-1970s, and 250 in 1980. Membership then fell to around 200 dues-paying Members during the remainder of the 1980s.

Initially, DSG meetings focused on providing legislative briefings for Members and developing strategy concerning pending floor legislation. Later, the DSG gained influence in the House by establishing a whip system and using paid staff to create research and policy analyses. DSG staff briefing papers and information on scheduled floor votes became essential reading material for many Members, especially for those who were not serving on the committee of jurisdiction. A leading congressional scholar described the DSG's influence on the legislative process as follows:

Operating out of an office on the top floor of the Longworth House Office Building, DSG staff briefing papers and information on scheduled floor legislation filled an information gap left open by party leaders. Even Republicans subscribed to the DSG Legislative Report for its detailed, balanced descriptions of bills and proposed amendments scheduled for floor action and for information on the rules setting the terms of floor debate. By 1977, 37 percent of House Members and 66 percent of legislative assistants surveyed by the House Commission on Administrative Review reported relying heavily on DSG material for information on legislation scheduled for floor action. Even a higher proportion of legislative assistants used DSG information for committee work and to keep up-to-date on public issues.

In 1963, 14 moderate and liberal House Republican freshmen, led by Representative F. Bradford Morse (R-MA), formed the Wednesday Group to serve as a forum for the exchange of information on pending legislation. Its membership later grew to about 30 Members. In 1966, Senators Jacob Javits (R-NY), Joseph Clark (D-PA), and George McGovern (D-SD), and Representative Robert Kastenmeier (D-WI) formed the nonpartisan Members of Congress for Peace Through Law (MCPL) to advocate their views on foreign affairs and defense policy and concerns about the escalating Vietnam conflict. One of its Members, Representative Paul McCloskey (R-CA), declared

[t]he beauty of the MCPL, the great function that it performs, is that it gives us a source of knowledge and an opportunity for self-information outside the formal committee work.... Essentially, it's a rebel organization. We're rebelling against the close ties between the Administration and committee chairmen who have a monopoly on information.

For several years, the DSG, Wednesday Group, and MCPL were the only informal Member groups within Congress that achieved a visible and enduring status within the institution.

Growth of Informal Member Organizations Beginning in the 1970s

As shown in Table 1 , the number of informal Member groups increased during the 1970s. The establishment of the Conference of Great Lakes Congressmen in 1970 and the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) in 1971 increased the number of informal Member organizations to five. By 1980, the number of informal Member organizations had grown to 59, not counting class clubs. During the 1970s, scholars note that Members were largely expected to follow and respect the norms of seniority, apprenticeship, and legislative specialization within the committee system. For Members who felt that these institutional arrangements inhibited their personal or policy objectives, informal Member organizations may have provided an alternative system for policy work that provided greater opportunities for individual policy specialization, representation of constituent interests, and working with like-minded colleagues.

House Regulation of Groups as Legislative Service Organizations (LSOs)

As the number of informal Member organizations grew throughout the 1970s, several Members and political organizations called for regulation of these groups, arguing that they operated largely beyond the reach of congressional ethics rules and were not subject to any direct congressional oversight.

In September 1977, the Commission on Administrative Review of the House of Representatives recommended that informal Member groups "should be held accountable for the spending of public monies." To accomplish this goal, the commission made recommendations for informal Member organizations, generally, and created recommended criteria for groups seeking recognition by the House as Legislative Service Organizations. The commission's recommendations were never considered by the full House, however, because the rule providing for their consideration, H.Res. 766 , was defeated in the House, 160-252, on October 12, 1977.

A report from the House Select Committee on Ethics from January 3, 1979, found that informal Member groups were exempt from language in House Rule XLV, which prohibited the establishment of unofficial office accounts. On April 4, 1979, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct issued an advisory opinion that determined that informal Member groups were exempt from House Rule XLIII, clause 11, which prohibited Members of the House from authorizing or allowing a non-House individual, group, or organization from using the words "Congress of the United States," "House of Representatives," "Official Business," or any combination thereof on any letterhead or envelope.

Given continuing concerns that, without congressional oversight, informal Member groups might be used to circumvent House ethics rules, on July 18, 1979, the Committee on House Administration issued the first regulations governing their activities. It required informal Member groups receiving disbursements from a Member's clerk-hire allowance or allowance for official expenses, office space controlled by the House Office Building Commission, or furniture, supplies, or equipment to

register with the Clerk of the House as an LSO; provide the Clerk a summary of their finances semi-annually, including, among other information, a listing of their officers and staff, a summary of funds received and disbursed, and an itemization of all receipts and disbursements if $1,000 or more in the aggregate; have its chair, or senior House Member certify the amount of employee salaries, the physical location of each employee, and the regular performance of official duties; and make a monthly certification of the amount of clerk-hire fees disbursed and identify the LSO employees receiving the funds, with the salary amounts issued directly by the Clerk.

Because LSOs were not subject to House rules concerning how House Members and committees could spend public funds, however, several organizations argued that LSOs could bring the House into public disrepute if they were used to circumvent House spending rules. One outside organization told the Committee on House Administration that

what legislators and their staffs were prohibited from doing as individuals, they can now do by acting as a group. Specifically, informal House groups can receive an unlimited amount of funds from special interest lobbying groups; they have not reported the proceeds from fundraising events as campaign contributions; one caucus has received contributions from foreign governments; and caucus related institutes have accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in non-bid grants from federal agencies. All of these activities, if conducted by a Member acting individually, would clearly be prohibited by House rules or federal law.

On September 22, 1981, the Committee on House Administration formed the Ad hoc Subcommittee on Legislative Service Organizations. In October 1981, the subcommittee held a hearing and adopted several recommendations regarding the regulation of LSOs. The full committee adopted these recommendations on October 21, 1981, which included the following regulations:

LSOs could not receive income or contributions, either in cash or in-kind, from any source other than Congress or its Members from their personal accounts, except that they may take advantage of educational intern, fellowship, or volunteer programs when the programs are primarily of educational benefit to the participating interns, fellows, or volunteers and they may distribute any report, analysis, or other research material prepared by others so long as the identity of the person or organization authoring the work is fully disclosed. Any informal Member group receiving contributions or any form of income from any source other than Congress or its Members (except as noted above) could not be located in space under control of the House and could not receive other support from the House or from Members of the House via their allowances. The Clerk of the House would disburse salary payments to an employee authorized by a Member to work for an LSO, dependent upon receiving a monthly certification by the employing Member and by the chair or ranking Member of the LSO. Each LSO would submit a quarterly report to the Clerk of the House no later than 30 days after the end of the reporting period, which would be publicly available and contain (1) the name, business address, officers, and number of Members of the organization; (2) total receipts for the quarter with a summary of receipts by category (e.g., clerk-hire, or dues); (3) total disbursements for the quarter plus a listing of the recipient, purpose, and amount of all disbursements in excess of $200 in the aggregate during the quarter; (4) a listing of the name, business address, and job title of all persons employed by the organization, their total compensation during the quarter, and the dates of their employment; (5) name and sponsor of all interns, fellows, or volunteers associated with the LSO; (6) a general description of the legislative services or other assistance associated with the LSO provided to its Members during the quarter; (7) a listing of all reports, analyses, or other material provided to Members during the quarter provided by the LSO; and (8) a copy of the sponsorship statement required to be filed with the Committee on House Administration at establishment and May 1 of each even-numbered year thereafter.

The Committee on House Administration's requirement to submit quarterly financial reports was effective January 1, 1982, and the other regulations were effective January 1, 1983.

Abolishment of LSOs and Creation of CMOs

During the 1980s and into the early 1990s, the number of informal House Member organizations generally continued to increase, although the number of LSOs remained fairly stable. In 1990 (101 st Congress), for example, there were 30 registered LSOs and 63 informal House Member groups.

In these years, some Members and political organizations questioned the financial integrity of certain LSOs, arguing that the quarterly financial reports they submitted were incomplete, misleading, or habitually late, and that these groups did not face any sanctions for violating House LSO regulations. At a hearing on May 6, 1993, for example, a member of the Committee on House Administration delivered the following critique of LSO accounting procedures:

The big picture is the House LSOs with millions of dollars in Federal tax dollars missing and unaccounted for. These are an embarrassment to the Congress. I think it could be a national disgrace. It could rival last year's bank, restaurant, and post office scandals. My independent 10 year review involves surprising and alarming figures. It shows that Members of Congress have funneled more than $34 million in tax funds on LSO operations. Those LSOs in turn report spending of $26.8 million.... $7.7 million are absent. They have simply disappeared. One out of every $5 is missing, unreported, and unaccounted for.

Some Members and political organizations also objected to certain LSOs' links with external groups and affiliated foundations, arguing that those relationships raised suspicions of impropriety. In addition, media reports suggested that some LSO spending and staffing decisions raised ethical questions concerning possible nepotism and cronyism, and accused some LSOs of using taxpayer funds for expenses that normally were prohibited or required preapproval for Members and committees. Also, some congressional scholars raised concerns about LSOs' decentralizing effect on the congressional policymaking process.

In response to concerns about lax filing of LSO financial reports, on August 5, 1993, the Committee on House Administration issued new LSO financial accounting requirements, effective January 1, 1994. The new regulations

placed financial management of LSOs under the House Finance Office (eliminating individual LSO bank accounts outside Congress), including payroll and expense vouchers; required LSOs to file proposed budgets starting in January, including a statement of purpose and a list of all employees and Members; subjected LSO employees to House ethics rules; and required LSOs to file annual, year-end statements disclosing cash-on-hand, expenses, and receipts.

The change in House leadership and party control following the 1994 elections ushered in further changes for House Member organizations through the elimination of LSOs and the creation of CMOs. At that time, there were 28 LSOs, and 16 of them had House office space, primarily in the Ford House Office Building. On December 6, 1994, incoming House Speaker-elect Newt Gingrich announced that the House Republican Conference had adopted a resolution to prohibit LSOs. House Members could still form groups for similar purposes, but institutional funding would no longer be available. Some congressional scholars have suggested that the elimination of LSOs, in part, helped Speaker Gingrich centralize control in the House. One scholar, for example, argues

eliminating LSOs removed one institutional impediment to achieving a more hierarchical congressional structure in which party leaders and conferences assume an enhanced political importance.... The removal of autonomous and entrepreneurial actors such as LSOs was fully consonant with achieving a more centralized and rationalized House.

Members from the new minority party and Members of established LSOs, including the Democratic Study Group, Congressional Black Caucus, Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues, opposed the dissolution of LSOs. More than 150 members of the Democratic Study Group, which had 18 full-time employees and a $1.6 million budget in 1993, signed a letter in December 1994 to the incoming Speaker, alleging that the prohibition on LSOs was "an effort to censor opposing views, and to deny the primary source of information to the minority party as we embark upon a furious legislative schedule."

LSOs were eliminated through the adoption of the House Rules for the 104 th Congress on January 4, 1995. The Committee on House Oversight (now the Committee on House Administration) subsequently revoked previous certifications of all LSOs, effective January 11, 1995. LSOs were instructed to stop spending money and vacate their offices by January 31, 1995. They were given until March 30, 1995, to pay all outstanding bills; any balances in LSO accounts after April 3, 1995, were to be returned to the U.S. Treasury to reduce the national debt.

On February 8, 1995, the committee issued regulations defining CMOs and governing their activities:

A CMO is an informal organization of Members who share official resources to jointly carry out activities.... [It has] no separate corporate or legal identity apart from the Members who comprise it.... [It] is not an employing authority, and no staff may be appointed by, or in the name of a CMO. A CMO may not be assigned separate office space.

CMO organizers were required to provide the CMO's name, a statement of purpose, the names and titles of officers, and the name of any personal staff member (including shared employees) designated to work on the CMO's issues when they registered with the committee, and as changes in information warranted. Members could not use funds from their official allowances to support CMO activities or lend their frank to a CMO. CMOs could not accept funds or resources from outside groups or individuals to support their operations. However, Members could use their own personal funds for that purpose.

Most (23) of the 28 LSOs reorganized and continued operating either as an informal Member group (8) or as a CMO (15). Four LSOs disbanded, including one that became a private, nonprofit organization and another that transferred its research responsibilities to the House Republican Conference. Another LSO was absorbed by the House Democratic Caucus.

Some contemporary political observers believed that the demise of LSOs in 1995 might have signaled the end, or at least a significant reduction, of the number, role, and influence of informal Member organizations in Congress. Instead, the number of CMOs and informal Member groups continued to increase in the late 1990s, suggesting that, despite the limitations imposed on the options available to House Members to support these organizations, they have retained an important role in the congressional policymaking process. Since the 2000s, the number of informal member organizations has continued to grow.

Informal Member organizations have become an enduring part of modern Congresses, and they have grown in number markedly since the 1970s. House or Senate regulations broadly pertaining to individual Members' activities generally apply to their participation with informal Member organizations, and certain additional House regulations from the Committee on House Administration affect a subset of informal Member organizations known as CMOs. The independence of these groups from more formal institutions within the House and Senate can provide certain advantages, such as facilitating collaboration among Members and providing leadership opportunities outside of one's party or committee assignments. At times, this relative independence has also led to concerns about oversight for informal Member organizations, as well as concerns over the fractionalization of the legislative process and competition with formal leadership and committee functions. Some groups may share legislative or representational interests with the House or Senate at large, certain party leaders, or particular committees; yet Member organizations can also create forums for differing viewpoints, new policy ideas, or more particularized constituent concerns. Informal Member organizations can facilitate deliberation and policy development in Congress by providing opportunities for Members to exchange information and can contribute to public awareness on a variety of topics.

This appendix covers some considerations that may be of interest to House Members seeking to form a CMO. Current requirements from the Committee on House Administration are noted, where applicable.

First, clearly state the group's objective(s). What is its purpose?

The founding Member(s) determines whether there is sufficient interest to warrant organizing the group. A number of methods may be used in making this determination. These include informal discussions with colleagues; communications with constituents (individuals and organizations); and the Member's personal judgment and interest.

The extent to which an issue or interest is fragmented within the committee system may also be a factor. In an effort to bring the various aspects of an issue under one entity, a number of groups have been organized around issues that were widely dispersed among several committees and subcommittees.

Sometimes, the organizing Member(s) selects a few colleagues with an interest in the issue, consults with them about the group, and enlists their support in organizing it. In many instances, these Members serve as the group's executive officers, coordinators, or sponsors, and are the activists who lay the group's foundation and shape its policy. This informal gathering of "core" Members may occur before the group is actually established or shortly thereafter.

Consider Internal Institutional Concerns

In an effort to avoid the appearance of rivalry or duplication with party or committee positions and policy, group organizers may wish to consult with party and committee leadership, or inform them of the intent to form the organization. Similar consideration may also be given to any existing groups that handle relevant aspects of the issue(s) or policy. Organizers will likely want to give careful consideration to the group's name in order to avoid confusion with other existing entities (whether formal or informal).

CMO membership is voluntary. Eligibility criteria for membership are determined by the group itself. Membership may be open to all Members who are willing to join, or it may be limited to invitees only. Membership may be open to

one party only or both parties; the House only or both the House and the Senate; regions that share specific economic concerns; districts or states; Members who share personal characteristics; Members whose constituents share personal or occupational characteristics; or Members who share issue interests.

Membership may also be based upon committee and subcommittee assignments. Similarly, the membership lists of the committees and subcommittees with primary jurisdiction over the relevant issue(s) can be used to identify prospective CMO members. This procedure can provide an indication of whether, how, and by whom the issue is handled. It may also identify some Members who would either support or oppose the group.

The Committee on House Administration has issued specific regulations governing groups that register as CMOs. The regulations appear in the Members' Congressional Handbook, which is available online at http://cha.house.gov/handbooks/members-congressional-handbook#Members-Handbook-Organizations .

After reviewing these regulations, House Members may wish to contact the Committee on House Administration, the House Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards (also known as the Franking Commission), the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct's Office of Advice and Education, and any other authorities, as appropriate, for guidance.

There are instances where formation of a CMO has been announced on the House floor, in the Congressional Record , by the media (through press releases, news articles, newsletters, television interviews, etc.), and internally, through circulation of "Dear Colleague" letters to Members. The "Dear Colleague" letter and announcement usually invite Members to join the group and explain its goals, anticipated activities, and reason(s) for being formed. Sometimes, notification of a group's formation also includes language aimed at assuring that the group is not being established to supplant the structure or operations of any committee or party organizations.

Register with the Committee on House Administration

As mentioned previously, any informal group of House Members that wishes 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. The registration form is available at https://cha.house.gov/member-services/congressional-memberstaff-organizations/cmocso-registration-form#cmo .

Each CMO determines its own organizational structure. All CMOs are required to have at least one identifiable leader who is designated as the group's sponsor when it is registered with the Committee on House Administration. That Member, or Members if there is more than one sponsor, is listed as the CMO's chair, or co-chairs, on the committee's web page. Beyond that, many CMOs have little or no formal organizational structure. Often, the founding Member or Members serve as the group's officers or coordinators, without formal election or designation. Leadership responsibilities (e.g., coordinating the group's activities, scheduling meetings, distributing information on group issues and actions, etc.) are undertaken by Members who volunteer, and group business usually is handled by staff in an individual Member's office as part of their regular office duties.

Several groups have a structure that includes any combination of the following elements: officers (e.g., chair, co-chair, vice chair, secretary); an executive committee (alternatively called an executive board, steering committee, or advisory panel); and subunits (usually called task forces or working groups).

The chair usually is a Member who is highly interested in the issue(s) surrounding the group's organization. More often than not, he or she "steps forth" to serve in that role or agrees to accept the position when recruited. Usually, he or she also designates staff to serve as (the) key contact person(s) for the group and to provide assistance on group business.

Most bipartisan or bicameral CMOs have had more than one chair (i.e., co-chairmen) to emphasize the bipartisan or bicameral aspect of the organization. For example, a CMO might have two co-chairs, one from each party. Or, the CMO might have a chair, who may be a Member of either party in either house, as well as a Senate co-chair and a House co-chair, while prescribing that all three officers cannot be members of the same party.

Several CMOs have a chair, vice chair, and secretary. A few have opted for an even more stratified structure, one that might include whips and an executive committee. Class groups (i.e., freshmen in a particular Congress) usually have a structure that includes a president, vice president, and secretary.

Most of the bicameral groups are also bipartisan, and their organizational structure usually reflects these characteristics. Thus, many bicameral CMOs require that the group's leadership be composed of Members from both parties and both houses. Current CMO regulations provide that "Members of both the House and Senate may participate in CMO, but at least one of the Officers of the CMO must be a Member of the House."

Executive Committee/Steering Committee/Advisory Board

For most CMOs, the officers or executive committee administer the group's activities and set its agenda. Often, the executive committee also serves as the CMO's source of expertise, and it advises the group on certain issues. An executive committee serving in this advisory capacity sometimes comprises Members who serve on the committees and subcommittees with primary jurisdiction over the issue(s) of concern to the group. Other bases for advisory or executive committee membership might be the Member's state or region, common characteristic(s) of Members' constituents or congressional districts, or shared characteristics among the Members themselves, including their "class" group, knowledge, or interest. Some CMOs have separated the administrative and advisory roles of the executive committee by creating an advisory committee, apart from the executive committee.

How Are the Chairs and Other Officers Selected?

Like other internal operational matters, the manner by which the CMO's chair(s) is selected is left to the discretion of each CMO. A CMO may use an informal method of selection, whereby Members volunteer to serve as chair. If more than one Member expresses such interest, a co-chair arrangement may be used. Or, the interested Members themselves may work out an agreement as to who will serve, perhaps so that some Members serve during the first session and others during the second session. Alternatively, a group may choose a more formal process whereby interested Members must be nominated and then stand for election by the total membership or the executive committee.

In many instances, the initial chair(s) is the CMO's founder. Often, he or she continues to serve until no longer a Member or until he or she relinquishes the position. However, in some instances, tenure as CMO chair is limited, either by custom or by rule (in the CMO's bylaws).

Currently, CMOs cannot employ staff. It is the individual Members and not the CMO who are the employing entities. Thus, CMO business is handled by staff of individual Members (often the group's chair(s)) as part of their regular duties. Frequently, the staff member works in an area related to the group's issue(s).

Beginning in the 114 th Congress, the House amended its rules to allow certain CMOs (Eligible Congressional Member Organizations, or ECMOs) to enter into agreements with individual Members to contribute employment slots and a portion of the Members' Representational Allowance to a dedicated account of the ECMO. Members interested in registering a CMO as an ECMO can consult with the Committee on House Administration regarding the eligibility requirements and registration process.


Legislative Branch Agency Appointments: History, Processes, and Recent Actions

Summary: The leaders of the legislative branch agencies and entities—the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Library of Congress (LOC), the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the Government Publishing Office (GPO, formerly Government Printing Office), the Office of the Architect of the Capitol (AOC), the U.S. Capitol Police (USCP), the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and the Office of Compliance—are appointed in a variety of manners.

Summary: Four agencies are led by a person appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate; two are appointed by Congress; one is appointed by the Librarian of Congress; and one is appointed by a board of directors.

Summary: Congress has periodically examined the procedures used to appoint these officers with the aim of protecting the prerogatives of, and ensuring accountability to, Congress within the framework of the advice and consent appointment process established in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution.

Summary: This report contains information on the legislative branch agency heads' appointment processes, length of tenures (if terms are set), reappointment or removal provisions (if any), salaries and benefits, and most recent appointments.

Summary: This report also briefly addresses legislation considered, but not enacted, in the 115th Congress to change the appointment process for the Register of Copyrights.

The leaders of the eight legislative branch agencies and entities—the Government Accountability Office, the Library of Congress, the Government Publishing Office (formerly Government Printing Office), the Office of the Architect of the Capitol, the U.S. Capitol Police, the Congressional Budget Office, the Congressional Research Service, and the Office of Compliance—are appointed in a variety of manners.

The first four agencies are led by a person appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The next two are appointed by Congress, the next by the Librarian of Congress, and the last by a board of directors.

Congress has periodically examined the procedures used to appoint legislative branch officers with the aim of protecting the prerogatives of, and ensuring accountability to, Congress within the framework of the advice and consent appointment process established in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. Legislation to alter the appointment process for legislative branch agencies and entities has periodically been introduced for many years. Questions remain about various reform proposals, including the ability of Congress to remove the President from the appointment process for some of these positions. These may depend upon the implication or interpretation of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, the definition of an "officer of the United States," the specific office or agency in question, and whether or not a change in appointing authority would require any revision in the powers and duties of legislative branch agency leaders. Some previous reforms and proposals have also attempted to find a role for the House of Representatives, which does not play a formal role in the confirmation of presidential nominees, in the search for legislative branch officials.

The report also briefly addresses legislation considered, but not enacted, in the 115 th Congress to change the appointment process for the Register of Copyrights.

Overview by Legislative Branch Agency or Entity

The following sections contain information on the legislative branch agency heads' appointment processes, length of tenures (if terms are set), reappointment or removal provisions (if any), salaries and benefi ts, and most recent appointments. Information is provided on each agency and summarized in Table 1 .

Pursuant to the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1990, the Architect is "appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate for a term of 10 years." The act also established a congressional commission responsible for recommending individuals to the President for the position of Architect of the Capitol. The commission, originally consisting of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President pro tempore of the Senate, the majority and minority leaders of the House of Representatives and the Senate, and the chairs and the ranking minority Members of the Committee on House Administration and the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, was expanded in 1995 to include the chairs and ranking minority Members of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.

Prior to 1989, the Architect was selected by the President for an unlimited term without any formal involvement of Congress. The FY1990 act, however, followed numerous attempts dating at least to the 1950s to alter the appointment procedure to provide a role for Congress. The proposals included requiring the advice and consent of the Senate, establishing a commission to recommend names to the President, and removing the appointment process from the President and instead making the Architect appointed solely by Congress.

In the 111 th Congress, two measures ( H.R. 2185 and H.R. 2843 ) were introduced to remove the President from the Architect appointment process and shift it to congressional leaders and chairs and ranking Members of specific congressional committees. Under both measures, the Architect would still serve a 10-year term. Under H.R. 2843 , as reported, the Architect would have been appointed jointly by the same 14-member panel, equally divided between the House and Senate, that currently is responsible for recommending candidates to the President. This bill was reported by the Committee on House Administration ( H.Rept. 111-372 ) on December 10, 2009. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure was discharged from further consideration the same day. The House agreed to the bill, as amended to include an 18-member panel, also equally divided between the House and Senate, by voice vote on February 3, 2010. H.R. 2843 was received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration, although no further action was taken.

Under the earlier bill ( H.R. 2185 , 111 th Congress), which was introduced on April 30, 2009, the Architect would have been appointed jointly by the Speaker of the House, the Senate majority leader, the minority leaders in the House and Senate, the chairs and ranking minority Members of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, and the chairs and ranking minority Members of the Committee on House Administration and Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. This bill followed similar legislation ( H.R. 6656 , 110 th Congress), with the same 12-member appointing panel, introduced on July 30, 2008. Both bills were referred to two committees, but no further action was taken.

The Architect of the Capitol is compensated at an "annual rate which is equal to the lesser of the annual salary for the Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives or the annual salary for the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate."

Stephen T. Ayers was nominated by President Obama for a 10-year term on February 24, 2010. He was the second Architect nominated pursuant to the new commission procedure. The nomination was referred to the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. The committee held a hearing on April 15, 2010, and Ayers was confirmed by unanimous consent in the Senate on May 12, 2010. Ayers was previously the Deputy Architect/Chief Operating Officer and had served as Acting Architect of the Capitol following the February 4, 2007, retirement of former Architect of the Capitol Alan Hantman.

Upon the retirement of Ayers on November 23, 2018, Christine Merdon, the Deputy Architect of the Capitol/Chief Operating Officer, became the Acting Architect of the Capitol.

Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 703(a)(1), the Comptroller General shall be "appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate." This procedure dates to the establishment of the agency in 1921. Additionally, a commission procedure established in 1980 recommends individuals to the President in the event of a vacancy. The commission consists of the Speaker of the House, the President pro tempore of the Senate, the majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate, the chairs and ranking minority Members of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The commission is to recommend at least three individuals for this position to the President, although the President may request additional names.

The Comptroller General is appointed to a 15-year term and may not be reappointed. The Comptroller General may be removed by "(A) impeachment; or (B) joint resolution of Congress, after notice and an opportunity for a hearing" and only by reason of permanent disability; inefficiency; neglect of duty; malfeasance; or a felony or conduct involving moral turpitude.

The salary of the Comptroller General is equal to Level II of the Executive Schedule. Additionally, a law enacted in 1953 established a separate retirement system for the Comptroller General.

Gene L. Dodaro, then-Chief Operating Officer at GAO, became the acting Comptroller General on March 13, 2008, upon the resignation of David M. Walker, who had previously been confirmed on October 21, 1998. The White House announced Dodaro's nomination to a 15-year term as Comptroller General on September 22, 2010. The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs held a hearing on the nomination on November 18, 2010, and Dodaro was confirmed by the Senate by unanimous consent on December 22, 2010.

The Government Publishing Office (formerly Government Printing Office) was established in 1861. The U.S. Code , at 44 U.S.C. 301, states that the President "shall nominate and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint a suitable person to take charge of and manage the Government Publishing Office. The title shall be Director of the Government Publishing Office."

The current appointment language was enacted in 2014, although the use of the advice and consent procedure for this position can be traced back much further. There is no set term of office for the Director. The Director's pay is equivalent to Level II of the Executive Schedule.

Robert C. Tapella was nominated to be Director of the Government Publishing on June 18, 2018. The nomination was referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration. No further action was taken prior to the end of the 115 th Congress, and the nomination was returned to the President pursuant to Senate Rule XXXI. President Trump renominated Tapella on January 16, 2019. The nomination was referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration. Previously, Tapella served in this role from October 4, 2007 (confirmed by the Senate by voice vote) until December 28, 2010.

GPO's Chief Administrative Officer, Herbert H. Jackson Jr., has served as Acting Deputy Director since July 1, 2018, following the retirement of Andrew M. Sherman. Sherman, formerly GPO's Chief of Staff, had been serving as Acting Deputy Director since the retirement of Acting GPO Director Jim Bradley on March 6, 2018. Bradley, previously the GPO Deputy Director, had assumed this role following the departure of the previous Director, Davita Vance-Cooks, in November 2017. Vance-Cooks had been nominated by President Obama on May 9, 2013, to be Public Printer, as the head of the GPO was then known, and confirmed by the Senate by voice vote on August 1, 2013.

The Library of Congress was established in 1800. The U.S. Code , at 2 U.S.C. 136, states: "The Librarian of Congress shall make rules and regulations for the government of the Library."

Until an act of February 19, 1897, which made the appointment subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, the Librarian was appointed solely by the President.

Recent changes to the appointment statute, at 2 U.S.C. 136-1, amended the tenure of the Librarian. The Librarian of Congress Succession Modernization Act of 2015, S. 2162 , was introduced in the Senate on October 7, 2015, and agreed to the same day by unanimous consent. It was agreed to in the House without objection on October 20 and signed by President Obama on November 5, 2015 ( P.L. 114-86 ). The act establishes a term limit of 10 years, with the possibility of reappointment by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Previously, there was no set term of office for the Librarian.

The U.S. Code , at 2 U.S.C. 136a-2, states: "the Librarian of Congress shall be compensated at an annual rate of pay which is equal to the annual rate of basic pay payable for positions at Level II of the Executive Schedule under section 5313 of title 5."

Carla D. Hayden was nominated to a 10-year term as Librarian of Congress by President Obama on February 24, 2016. The Senate Committee on Rules and Administration held a hearing on the nomination on April 20, 2016, and ordered the nomination favorably reported on June 9. Hayden was confirmed as the 14 th Librarian of Congress on July 13, 2016 (74-18, record vote number 128).

Hayden succeeded James H. Billington who retired effective September 30, 2015. Billington had been confirmed as Librarian of Congress by the Senate on July 24, 1987.

The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 provides that the Librarian of Congress appoint the Director of the Congressional Research Service (CRS) "after consultation with the Joint Committee on the Library." The basic rate of pay for the director is equivalent to Level III of the Executive Schedule. There is no set term of office.

Mary B. Mazanec, who served as Acting Director of CRS following the retirement of former Director Daniel P. Mulhollan on April 2, 2011, was appointed Director by the Librarian of Congress on December 5, 2011.

2 U.S.C. 1901 states: "There shall be a captain of the Capitol police and such other members with such rates of compensation, respectively, as may be appropriated for by Congress from year to year. The Capitol Police shall be headed by a Chief who shall be appointed by the Capitol Police Board and shall serve at the pleasure of the Board." The last sentence was inserted in 1979, struck by the FY2003 Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, and restored in 2010 by the U.S. Capitol Police Administrative Technical Corrections Act.

Pursuant to the FY2003 act, the chief of the Capitol Police receives compensation "equal to $1,000 less than the lower of the annual rate of pay in effect for the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Representatives or the annual rate of pay in effect for the Sergeant-at-Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate." Pay for the chief has been adjusted multiple times in recent years: it formerly was (1) equal to Level IV of the Executive Schedule under 1979 legislation, (2) linked to the Senior Executive Service under an act from 2000, and (3) equal to $2,500 less than these officers pursuant to a 2002 law.

On February 24, 2016, the Capitol Police Board announced the appointment of Matthew R. Verderosa as the new Chief of the U.S. Capitol Police, effective March 20, 2016. Previously, Chief Kim Dine was sworn in on December 17, 2012.

The director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has been appointed wholly by Congress since the creation of the post with the passage of the Congressional Budget Act in 1974. The act stipulates that the director is appointed for a four-year term "by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate after considering recommendations received from the Committees on the Budget of the House and the Senate, without regard to political affiliation and solely on the basis of his fitness to perform his duties." The director may be reappointed, and either chamber can remove the director by simple resolution. Additionally, a director appointed "to fill a vacancy prior to the expiration of a term shall serve only for the unexpired portion of that term" and an "individual serving as Director at the expiration of a term may continue to serve until his successor is appointed."

The director of CBO receives compensation at an annual rate that is equal to the lower of the highest annual rate of compensation of any officer of the House or any officer of the Senate.

Keith Hall, the current director of CBO, began his service on April 1, 2015. He follows Douglas W. Elmendorf, who began his term on January 22, 2009.

2 U.S.C. 1382 states that the chair of the board of directors of the Office of Compliance, "subject to the approval of the Board, shall appoint and may remove an Executive Director. Selection and appointment of the Executive Director shall be without regard to political affiliation and solely on the basis of fitness to perform the duties of the Office." The executive director must be "an individual with training or expertise in the application of laws referred to in section 1302(a)" of Title II of the U.S. Code .

The FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act altered the compensation for the Office's statutorily established positions, including that of the executive director. The chair of the board may fix the annual rate of pay for the executive director, although the level may not exceed the lesser of House or Senate officers. Prior to the FY2008 act, the maximum pay for this position had been Level V of the Executive Schedule.

Separate legislation, P.L. 110-164 , amended the Congressional Accountability Act and altered eligibility and tenure restrictions for the executive director by allowing current or former Office of Compliance employees to serve in this capacity. The legislation also permits the executive director, deputy executive directors, and general counsel, who formerly were limited to one five-year term in their positions, to serve up to two terms.

Susan Tsui Grundmann was appointed to a five-year term as executive director commencing January 2017. She succeeded Barbara J. Sapin, who was appointed in 2013.

Proposals Related to the Register of Copyrights in the 115th Congress

During the 115 th Congress, the House and Senate considered legislation that would alter the appointment of one position within one of these agencies—the Register of Copyrights. Under current law pertaining to the copyright office (17 U.S.C. 701):

All administrative functions and duties ... are the responsibility of the Register of Copyrights as director of the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress. The Register of Copyrights, together with the subordinate officers and employees of the Copyright Office, shall be appointed by the Librarian of Congress, and shall act under the Librarian's general direction and supervision.

H.R. 1695 and S. 1010 , the Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act, would have made the Register of Copyrights a presidential appointment, subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. The legislation would have established a seven-person panel to recommend at least three candidates for this position to the President. The panel would consist of the Speaker of the House, President pro tempore of the Senate, majority and minority leaders in the House and Senate, and Librarian of Congress. The bills would have established a 10-year term of office for the Register.

H.R. 1695 was reported by the House Judiciary Committee on April 20, 2017 ( H.R. 1695 , H.Rept. 115-91 ), and passed in the House, as amended, on April 26 (378–48, Roll no. 227). The Senate Committee on Rules and Administration held a hearing on September 26, 2018. A Senate committee markup of S. 1010 initially scheduled for December 12, 2018, was postponed. No further action was taken during the 115 th Congress.

The office is currently led by Acting Register of Copyrights Karyn A. Temple, who was named to the position by Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden on October 21, 2016.