[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]
[Â§ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------