[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 3, Chapters 10 - 14]
[Chapter 12. Conduct or Discipline of Members, Officers, or Employees]
[B. Nature and Forms of Disciplinary Measures]
[§ 12. In General; Penalties]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[Page 1719-1725]
CHAPTER 12
Conduct or Discipline of Members, Officers, or Employees
B. NATURE AND FORMS OF DISCIPLINARY MEASURES
Sec. 12. In General; Penalties
The authority of the House of Representatives over the internal
discipline of its Members flows from the Constitution, and the
enforcement of disciplinary proceedings by the House against a Member
is carried out under its rulemaking power.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 5, clause 1 states: ``Each House shall be
the Judge of the Elections, Returns, and Qualifications of its
own Members. . . .''
U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 5, clause 2 provides: ``Each House
may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members
for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-
thirds, expel a Member.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are several different kinds of disciplinary measures that
have been invoked by the House against one of its Members. These
include (1) expulsion, (2) exclusion,(21) (3) censure, (4)
sus
[[Page 1720]]
pension of voting rights and other privileges, (5) imposition of a
fine, (6) deprivation of seniority status, and (7) requiring an
apology.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Exclusion is apparently no longer a disciplinary procedure to be
invoked in cases involving the misconduct of Members but is
invoked only for failure to meet qualifications of Members as
defined by the Constitution. The United States Supreme Court in
1963, in Powell v McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, held that the power
of the House to judge the qualifications of its Members (art.
I, Sec. 5, clause 1) was limited to the constitutional
qualifications of age, citizenship, and inhabitancy (art. I,
Sec. 2, clause 2). For further discussion of exclusion, see
Sec. 14, infra.
1. See Sec. Sec. 13 et seq., infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Imprisonment is a form of punishment that is theoretically within
the power of the House to impose, but such action has never been taken
by the House against a Member.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated, ``[T]he Constitution expressly
empowers each House to punish its own Members for disorderly
behavior. We see no reason to doubt that this punishment may in
a proper case be imprisonment, and that it may be [for] refusal
to obey some rule on that subject made by the House for the
preservation of order.'' Kilbourn v Thompson, 103 U.S. 168,
189, 190 (1880).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jurisdiction over alleged misconduct rests with the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct. The committee is charged with the
responsibility of investigating alleged violations of the Code of
Official Conduct by a Member, officer, or employee of the House, or
violations by such person of any law, rule, regulation, or other
standard of conduct applicable in the performance of his duties or the
discharge of his responsibilities. The committee in such cases, after
notice and hearing, is directed to recommend to the House by resolution
or otherwise such action as the committee may deem appropriate in the
circumstances.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Rule XI clause 19, House Rules and Manual Sec. 720 (1973).
The Senate created a Select Committee on Standards and
Conduct, 110 Cong. Rec. 16938, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., July 24,
1964 [S. Res. 338, amended], and adopted a Code of Conduct, 114
Cong. Rec. 7406, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 22, 1968 [S. Res.
266], Rules XLI, XLII, XLIII, XLIV, Senate Manual. 93d Cong.
1st Sess. (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each elected officer of the House (who is not a Member) with
supervisory responsibilities is authorized to remove or otherwise
discipline any employee under his supervision.(4)Clerks to
Members are subject to removal at any time with or without
cause.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 2 USC Sec. 60-1, 84 Stat. 1190, Pub. L. No. 91-510 (1970). See also
2 USC Sec. 85.
5. 2 USC Sec. 92. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple Penalties
Sec. 12.1 A House committee recommended a resolution pro
[[Page 1721]]
viding for the imposition of multiple forms of punishment on a
Member-elect, including censure, fine, and loss of seniority;
subsequently the House adopted a resolution providing for a fine
and loss of seniority.
At the commencement of the 91st Congress, the House agreed to a
resolution (1) authorizing the Speaker to administer the oath to
Representative-elect Adam Clayton Powell, of New York, but (2)
providing for a fine of $25,000 to be deducted on a monthly basis from
his salary, (3) reducing his seniority to that of a first-term
Congressman (thus eliminating consideration of any prior service in the
computation of seniority), and (4) specifying that Mr. Powell must take
the oath before Jan. 15, 1969, or his seat would be declared
vacant.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 115 Cong. Rec. 29, 34, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1969 [H. Res.
2].
Similar recommendations plus a recommendation of censure
had been considered and rejected in the previous Congress. See
H. Res. 278, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., 113 Cong. Rec. 4997, Mar. 1,
1967, for the resolution embodying the recommendations of the
select committee pursuant to H. Res. 1. The motion for the
previous question on this resolution was defeated (113 Cong.
Rec. 5020), and a substitute amendment excluding the Member-
elect was proposed and adopted (113 Cong. Rec. 5037, 5038).
With respect to the committee's recommendation, the
committee Chairman, Emanuel Celler (N.Y.), stated: ``You will
note that we went beyond censure. Never before has a committee
devised such punishment short of exclusion which went beyond
censure.'' (113 Cong. Rec. 4998).
In opposing the multiple punishment, Representative John
Conyers, Jr. (Mich.) stated: ``A fine and a loss of seniority
is a completely unprecedented procedure for the House to use in
punishing a Member. There is simply no precedent whatsoever for
the House to punish its Members other than by censuring or
expelling.'' (113 Cong. Rec. 5007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disciplinary Actions Against Committee Chairmen
Sec. 12.2 The authority of the chairman of a committee of the House was
curtailed by the House through adoption of a resolution that
restricted the power of the chairman to provide for funds for
investigations by subcommittees of that committee.
In the 88th Congress, the Chairman (7) of the House
Committee on Education and Labor was disciplined by the House through
adoption of a resolution providing that funds for sub
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Adam Clayton Powell (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1722]]
committee investigations be made directly available to the
subcommittees.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 109 Cong. Rec. 3525-31, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 6, 1963, H.
Rept. No. 61 [H. Res. 254].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The chairman of the committee had requested authorization to
withdraw $697,000 from the contingent fund of the House for expenses of
committee investigations. However, the authorizing resolution, as
amended, provided only $200,000, of which $150,000 was made available
to each of the committee's six subcommittees (at $25,000
each).(9) The amendment (offered by the Committee on House
Administration) read:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 109 Cong. Rec. 3525, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . Page 1, line 5, strike out ``$697,000'' and insert
``$200,000''.
Page 1, line 11, after ``House'' insert a period and strike out
all that follows down through and including the period on page 2,
line 1 and insert in lieu thereof the following: ``Of such amount
$25,000 shall be available for each of six subcommittees of the
Committee on Education and Labor, and not to exceed $50,000 shall
be available to the Committee on Education and Labor. All amounts
authorized to be paid out of the contingent fund by this resolution
shall, in the case of each subcommittee, be paid on vouchers
authorized and signed by the chairman of the subcommittee, cosigned
by the chairman of the committee and approved by the Committee on
House Administration; in the case of the committee, such amount
shall be paid on vouchers authorized and signed by the chairman of
the committee and approved by the Committee on House
Administration.''
There had been alleged abuses in the hiring of committee staff, and
one of the members of the committee reported to the House that, ``we
(the members of the Committee on Education and Labor) had a bipartisan
front in the House Administration Committee to try to control the
expenditure of these funds.'' (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at p. 3526.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. John M. Ashbrook, of Ohio, a member of the Committee on
Education and Labor, explained the reason for the action:
(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at p. 3530.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the Committee on
House Administration for this action in which it has vindicated the
entire membership of this House. Because of the manner in which the
affairs of the Committee on Education and Labor have been conducted
during the past 2 years, I feel that each Member of this body was
in the position of deciding whether or not we should condone and
continue the policies which will now be held in close check due to
the timely action of this watchdog committee.
Some will say that the cuts are too deep. I think not. As the
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Landrum] so well put it, it will very
definitely mean cutting back on some of the employees whom we never
saw, rarely heard of,
[[Page 1723]]
and little benefited by. It will mean fewer opportunities for
lavish spending, fewer trips, and without doubt, less waste of
taxpayers' money. The basic work of our committee will be
accomplished on the fourth floor suite of the Old House Office
Building. It will be accomplished by Members of Congress whose pay
is not charged against this committee. If we buckle down and
proceed expeditiously, we can do as much or more with less costly
expenditure. The effort of the committee members and not the
dollars expended will be the true test of accomplishment.
Mr. Joe D. Waggonner, Jr., of Louisiana, gave further reasons for
the action taken: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House
Administration Committee and a member of the Subcommittee on
Accounts of that committee, I have consistently opposed the
granting of Chairman Powell's budget request for $697,000. I have
maintained that his budget should be cut to the bare essential
needed for his committee to function because of the unacceptable
manner in which he has served in his capacity as chairman. I would
advocate even greater cuts in his budget except for the fact that I
do not want to cripple the good men who are members of his
committee and who have consistently done a good job. With the
addition of further restrictions as to how and by whom this money
is spent and for what purpose it is spent, I hope we can by this
action, restore the faith of the people in this committee and in
the Congress. Certainly that is my desire.
Sec. 12.3 The membership of a House committee, in a move to discipline
its chairman, amended the rules of the committee so as to transfer
authority from the chairman to the membership and the subcommittee
chairmen.
On Sept. 22, 1966, the membership of the House Committee on
Education and Labor, in a move to discipline Chairman Adam Clayton
Powell, of New York, amended the rules of the committee so as to
transfer authority from the chairman to the membership and the
subcommittee chairmen. A copy of the newly adopted rules was printed in
the Congressional Record.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 112 Cong. Rec. 23797, 23798, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 26, 1966.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Glenn Andrews, of Alabama, described the occasion to the House:
(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 112 Cong. Rec. 23722, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 22, 1966.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . [A]s a member of the House Education and Labor Committee
of this body, I was present at this morning's historic meeting
[which was instrumental] in the action which was taken to limit the
powers of the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee.
Mr. John M. Ashbrook, of Ohio, stated to the House reasons set
forth for the action: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 112 Cong. Rec. 23308, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 20, 1966.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1724]]
. . . I for one will vote to strip him [Mr. Powell] of all
powers or for any partial limitations on his powers because, on the
merits, he has exercised them in such a manner as to bring
discredit on the entire House of Representatives. . . .
. . . [O]ur chairman has been openly accused of 3 number of
violations of House Rules. . . . It is rumored that Mr. Powell's
wife gave him a power of attorney to sign [her House of
Representatives salary] checks. A House rule apparently makes it
illegal for Mrs. Powell to be paid for work in Puerto Rico.
Sec. 12.4 The members of a House committee took action against the
chairman of that committee by restricting his authority to appoint
special subcommittees.
In the 83d Congress, first session,(16) during debate on
a resolution (17) relating to expenditures by the House
Committee on Government Operations, mention was made of the fact that
the committee had recently disciplined its chairman (18) by
withdrawing from him authority to appoint special subcommittees, a
blanket authority which it had granted to him at the beginning of the
session.(19) The chairman had created some 12 or 13 special
subcommittees, and it was alleged that ``these subcommittees were
undertaking to operate outside the jurisdiction of the committee and
there was a suggestion made that they were infringing on the
jurisdiction of the regularly established subcommittees.''
(20) It was also alleged that the chairman had not consulted
with the ranking minority member or the committee membership in
creating the subcommittees, and that he appointed some minority members
to the special subcommittees without consulting the Democratic
(minority) members of the committee.(21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 99 Cong. Rec. 10360-63, July 29, 1953.
17. H. Res. 339, amending H. Res. 150, 83d Cong. 1st Sess. [H. Rept.
No. 1020].
18. Clare Hoffman, of Michigan.
19. 99 Cong. Rec. 10362, remarks of Mr. Charles Halleck, of Indiana.
20. Id.
21. 99 Cong. Rec. 10362, remarks of Mr. John McCormack, of
Massachusetts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The committee membership, in July 1953, reacquired the power to
authorize special subcommittees. The committee rules were changed to
provide that subcommittees could be created upon motion of the chairman
but subject to the approval of the committee.(22)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. 99 Cong. Rec. 10362, remarks of Mr. Charles Halleck, of Indiana.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the Committee on House Administration reported out a
resolution (H. Res. 339),
[[Page 1725]]
after a hearing on July 22, 1953, at which all members of the Committee
on Government Operations were invited to be present. The resolution was
declared to be ``. . . a solution of a situation which was described as
intolerable by a considerable number of the members of the Committee on
Government Operations.'' (23)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. 99 Cong. Rec. 10360, remarks of Mr. Karl M. LeCompte, of Iowa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The resolution allotted specific funds to all but one of the
regular subcommittees, to be drawn on the voucher of the subcommittee
chairman, and allotted the remainder for committee expenses, expenses
of special subcommittees and the expenses of one regular
subcommittee.(24) (Note: Under H. Res. 150, which was
amended by H. Res. 339, provision had been made for having all vouchers
signed by the committee chairman.) (25)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. 99 Cong. Rec. 10360, H. Res. 339.
25. Mr. Hoffman had raised a question of personal privilege and had
addressed the matter prior to House consideration of H. Res.
339. See 99 Cong. Rec. 10351-59, July 29, 1953.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------