[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§ 16. Censure; Reprimand]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 1743-1753]
 
                               CHAPTER 12
 
        Conduct or Discipline of Members, Officers, or Employees
 
              B. NATURE AND FORMS OF DISCIPLINARY MEASURES
 
Sec. 16. Censure; Reprimand

    In the House, the underlying concept governing the censure of a 
Member for misconduct is that of breach of the rights and privileges of 
the House.(7) As indicated in a report of a select committee 
of the House,(8) the power of each House to censure its 
Members ``for disorderly behavior'' is found in article I section 5 
clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. It is discretionary in character, 
and upon a resolution for censure of a Member for misconduct each 
individual Member considering the matter is at liberty to act on his 
sound discretion and vote according to the dictates of his own judgment 
and conscience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 1644.
 8. H. Rept. No. 90-27, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 23, 1967, ``In Re 
        Adam Clayton Powell, Report of the Select Committee Pursuant to 
        H. Res. 1,'' pp. 24-30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The conduct for which censure may be imposed is not limited to acts 
relating to the Member's official duties. See In re Chapman (166 U.S. 
661 [1897]). The committee considering censure of Senator Joseph 
McCarthy stated (S. Rept. No. 2508, 83d Cong., p. 22): ``It seems clear 
that if a Senator should be guilty of reprehensible conduct unconnected 
with his official duties and position, but which conduct brings the 
Senate into disrepute, the Senate has the power to censure.''
    During its history, through the 94th Congress, the House of 
Representatives has censured 17 Members and one Delegate and has 
reprimanded one Member in the 94th Congress. All but one of the 
instances of censure occurred during the 19th century, 13 Members being 
censured between 1864 and 1875. The last censure in the House was 
imposed in 1921. In the Senate, there are four instances of censure, 
including the censure of Senator Joseph McCarthy in 1954.

    Most cases of censure have involved the use of unparliamentary 
language, assaults upon a Mem

[[Page 1744]]

ber or insults to the House by introduction of offensive 
resolutions,~(9) but in five cases in the House and one in 
the Senate censure was based on corrupt acts by a Member, and in 
another Senate case censure was based upon noncooperation with and 
abuse of Senate committees.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 1246-1249, 1251, 1256, 1305, 
        1621, 1656; 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 236.
10. See 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 1239, 1273, 1274, 1286; 6 
        Cannon's Precedents Sec. 239; ``Senate Election, Expulsion and 
        Censure Cases,'' S. Doc. No. 71, 87th Cong., pp. 125-27, 152-
        54.
            In 1870, during the 41st Congress, the House censured John 
        T. DeWeese, B. F. Whittemore, and Roderick R. Butler for the 
        sale of appointments to the U. S. Military and Naval Academies. 
        In Butler's case, the Member had appointed to the Military 
        Academy a person not a resident of his district and 
        subsequently received a political contribution from the cadet's 
        father. Censure of DeWeese and Whittemore was voted 
        notwithstanding that each had previously resigned. A resolution 
        to expel Butler was defeated upon failure to obtain a two-
        thirds vote, whereupon a resolution of censure was voted in 
        which the House ``declare[d] its condemnation'' of his conduct, 
        which it characterized as ``an unauthorized and dangerous 
        practice'' (2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 1239, 1273, 1274).
            In 1929 Senator Hiram Bingham (Conn.) was censured for 
        having placed on the Senate payroll, and used as a consultant 
        on a pending tariff bill, one Charles L. Eyanson, who was 
        simultaneously in the employ of the Manufacturers Association 
        of Connecticut. The Senate adopted a resolution of censure 
        providing that Senator Bingham's conduct regarding Eyanson 
        ``while not the result of corrupt motives on the part of the 
        Senator from Connecticut, is contrary to good morals and 
        senatorial ethics and tends to bring the Senate into dishonor 
        and disrepute, and such conduct is hereby condemned.'' 6 
        Cannon's Precedents Sec. 239.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1873, during the 42d Congress, a special investigating committee 
was appointed to inquire into charges that Representatives Oakes Ames 
and James Brooks had been bribed in connection with the Credit Mobilier 
Co. and the Union Pacific Railroad.(11) Al

[[Page 1745]]

though the committee recommended that both Members be expelled, the 
House adopted substitute censure resolutions in which it ``absolutely 
condemn[ed]'' the conduct of Ames and Brooks (2 Hinds' Precedents 
Sec. 1286).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. The committee reported that Representative Oakes Ames ``has been 
        guilty of selling to Members of Congress shares of stock in the 
        Credit Mobilier of America for prices much below the true value 
        of such stock, with intent thereby to influence the votes and 
        decisions of such Members in matters to be brought before 
        Congress for action.'' With regard to Representative James 
        Brooks, the committee found that he ``did procure the Credit 
        Mobilier Co. to issue and deliver to Charles H. Neilson, for 
        the use and benefit of said Brooks, 50 shares of the stock of 
        said company at a price much below its real value, well knowing 
        that the same was so issued and delivered with intent to 
        influence the votes and decisions of said Brooks as a Member of 
        the House.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although there has been a divergence of views concerning the power 
of a House to expel a Member for acts committed during a preceding 
Congress, the right of a House to censure a Member for such prior acts 
is supported by clear precedent in both Houses of Congress--namely, the 
case of Ames and Brooks in the House of Representatives and the case of 
Senator McCarthy in the Senate. In Ames and Brooks the acts for which 
censure was voted occurred more than five years prior to censure and 
two congressional elections had intervened.
    Thus, the broad power of the House to censure Members extends to 
acts occurring during a prior Congress. Whether such powers should be 
invoked in such circumstances is a matter committed to the discretion 
and judgment of the House upon consideration of the nature of the prior 
acts, whether they were known to the electorate at the previous 
election and to the prior House, and the extent to which they directly 
involve the authority, integrity, dignity, or reputation of the 
House.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H. Rept. No. 90-27, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 23, 1967. See also 
        Sec. 8.4, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Censure, like other forms of discipline except expulsion, is by a 
majority of those voting, a quorum being present. (6 Cannon's 
Precedents Sec. 236.) The House itself must order the censure. The 
Speaker cannot, of his own authority, censure a Member.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 1344, 1345; 6 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 237.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A censure resolution may call for direct and immediate action by 
the House; (14) or it may recommend that a committee be 
appointed to investigate and report to the House.~l5~ A 
House select committee may recommend censure of a Member along with 
other forms of punishment in response to a resolution to investigate 
and recommend as to the initial and final right to a 
seat.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 1246-1251, 1254-1258; 6 Cannon's 
        Precedents Sec. Sec. 236, 239.
15. 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 1649-1651, 1655 1656.
16. 113 Cong. Rec. 4997, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 1, 1967; see 113 
        Cong. Rec. 24, 26, 27, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 10, 1967.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1746]]

    Floor debate on a resolution of censure is under the hour 
rule.(17) The House has permitted the Member to be heard in 
debate as a matter of course without permission being asked or 
given,(18) or by unanimous consent.(19) And the 
Member controlling debate under the hour rule can yield time to the 
Member being censured. In one instance, after a Member had explained, 
the House reconsidered its vote of censure and reversed 
it.(20) In some situations where Members have apologized 
following the initiation of censure proceedings, the House has accepted 
the apology and terminated the proceedings.(2~1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4990.
18. 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 1246, 1253.
19. 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 1656.
20. 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 1653.
21. See, for instance, 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 1250, 1257, 1258, 
        1652; 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 7006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the House has ordered censure, it is normally administered by 
the Speaker to the Member at the bar of the House.(22)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. See 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 1251, 1259; 6 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 236.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The House has on occasion made a distinction between censure and 
reprimand, the latter being a somewhat lesser punitive measure than 
censure. A censure is administered by the Speaker to the Member at the 
bar of the House, whereas a reprimand is administered to the Member 
``standing in his place'' (23) or merely by way of the 
adoption of a committee report. Thus in 1976,(24) the House 
administered a reprimand to Mr. Robert L. F. Sikes, of Florida, by 
adopting by a vote of 381 yeas to 3 nays a resolution (H. Res. 1421) 
which provided that the House adopt the report of the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct on the investigation of a complaint 
against Mr. Sikes. The Speaker administered no oral reprimand. The 
report (1) declared that (a) failure of Mr. Sikes to report 
certain stockholdngs as required by House Rule XLIV was deserving of a 
reprimand, and (b) that the investment by him in the stock of a bank at 
a naval base in Florida and activities in promoting its establishment 
was deserving of a reprimand. The report provided that in each 
instance, ``the adoption of this report by the House shall constitute 
such reprimand.'' (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. Luther Sterns Cushing, Elements of the Law and Practice of 
        Legislative Assemblies in the United States of America, 2d ed. 
        (1866), Sec. 682.
24. Cong. Rec. (daily ed.), 94th Cong. 2d Sess., July 29, 1976.
 1. H. Rept. No. 94-1364, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., July 23. 1976.
 2. Id. at p. 4.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1747]]

Censure of Adam Clayton Powell

Sec. 16.1 A House select committee recommended censure, along with 
    other penalties, against a Member-elect.

    On Mar. 1, 1967,(3) the House considered a resolution 
censuring Adam Clayton Powell, of New York, for, inter alia, ignoring 
the processes and authority of the New York state courts and for 
improper use of government funds. The resolution provided:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H. Res. 278, 113 Cong. Rec. 4997, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Whereas,
        The Select Committee appointed pursuant to H. Res. 1 (90th 
    Congress) has reached the following conclusions:
        First, Adam Clayton Powell possesses the requisite 
    qualifications of age, citizenship and inhabitancy for membership 
    in the House of Representatives and holds a Certificate of Election 
    from the State of New York.
        Second, Adam Clayton Powell has repeatedly ignored the 
    processes and authority of the courts in the State of New York in 
    legal proceedings pending therein to which he is a party, and his 
    contumacious conduct towards the court of that State has caused him 
    on several occasions to be adjudicated in contempt thereof, thereby 
    reflecting discredit upon and bringing into disrepute the House of 
    Representatives and its Members.
        Third, as a Member of this House, Adam Clayton Powell 
    improperly maintained on his clerk-hire payroll Y. Marjorie Flores 
    (Mrs. Adam C. Powell) from August 14, 1964, to December 31, 1966, 
    during which period either she performed no official duties 
    whatever or such duties were not performed in Washington, D. C. or 
    the State of New York as required by law.
        Fourth, as Chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor, 
    Adam Clayton Powell permitted and participated in improper 
    expenditures of government funds for private purposes.
        Fifth, the refusal of Adam Clayton Powell to cooperate with the 
    Select Committee and the Special Subcommittee on Contracts of the 
    House Administration Committee in their lawful inquiries authorized 
    by the House of Representatives was contemptuous and was conduct 
    unworthy of a Member; Now, therefore be it
        Resolved,
        1. That the Speaker administer the oath of office to the said 
    Adam Clayton Powell, Member-elect from the Eighteenth District of 
    the State of New York.
        2. That upon taking the oath as a Member of the 90th Congress 
    the said Adam Clayton Powell be brought to the bar of the House in 
    the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House and be there 
    publicly censured by the Speaker in the name of the House.
        3. That Adam Clayton Powell, as punishment, pay to the Clerk of 
    the House to be disposed of by him according to law, Forty Thousand 
    Dollars ($40,000.00). The Sergeant-at Arms of the House is directed 
    to deduct One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) per month from the 
    salary otherwise due the said Adam Clayton Powell and pay

[[Page 1748]]

    the same to said Clerk, said deductions to continue while any 
    salary is due the said Adam Clayton Powell as a Member of the House 
    of Representatives until said Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000.00) 
    is fully paid. Said sums received by the Clerk shall offset to the 
    extent thereof any liability of the said Adam Clayton Powell to the 
    United States of America with respect to the matters referred to in 
    the above paragraphs Third and Fourth of the preamble to this 
    Resolution.
        4. That the seniority of the said Adam Clayton Powell in the 
    House of Representatives commence as of the date he takes the oath 
    as a Member of the 90th Congress.
        5. That if the said Adam Clayton Powell does not present 
    himself to take the oath of office on or before March 13, 1967, the 
    seat of the Eighteenth District of the State of New York shall be 
    deemed vacant and the Speaker shall notify the Governor of the 
    State of New York of the existing vacancy.

    The House voted down the motion for the previous question on the 
resolution and substituted an amendment to exclude, which was 
adopted.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 113 Cong. Rec. 5020, 5037, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 1, 1967. See 
        also Sec. 14.1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Censure of Joseph R. McCarthy

Sec. 16.2 The Senate, by resolution reported by a select committee, 
    censured a Senator for his noncooperation with and abuse of certain 
    Senate committees during an investigation of his conduct as a 
    Senator.

    In 1951, during the 82d Congress, a resolution had been introduced 
calling for an investigation to determine whether expulsion proceedings 
should be instituted against Senator Joseph McCarthy, of Wisconsin, by 
reason, inter alia, of his activities in the 1950 Maryland senatorial 
election; the resolution was referred to the Subcommittee on Privileges 
and Elections, whose Chairman was Senator Guy M. Gillette, of Iowa. 
Senator McCarthy rejected invitations to attend the hearings of the 
Gillette subcommittee, termed the charges against him a Communist 
smear, and stated that the hearings were designed to expel him ``for 
having exposed Communists in Government.'' In 1954, during the 
succeeding 83d Congress, a censure resolution against Senator McCarthy 
was introduced and referred to a select committee headed by Senator 
Arthur V. Watkins, of Utah. The Watkins committee recommended censure 
in part on the ground that Senator McCarthy's conduct toward the 
Gillette subcommittee, its members and the Senate ``was contemptuous, 
contumacious, and denunciatory, without reason, or justification, and 
was obstructive to

[[Page 1749]]

legislative processes.'' (5) After debate, the Senate 
adopted a resolution (S. Res. 301, as amended) censuring Senator 
McCarthy on two counts:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 100 Cong. Rec. 16392, 83d Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 2, 1954 [S. Res. 
        301, amended], S. Rept. No. 83-2508.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, failed 
    to cooperate with the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections of 
    the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration in clearing up 
    matters referred to that subcommittee which concerned his conduct 
    as a Senator and affected the honor of the Senate and, instead, 
    repeatedly abused the subcommittee and its members who were trying 
    to carry out assigned duties, thereby obstructing the 
    constitutional processes of the Senate, and that this conduct of 
    the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, is contrary to senatorial 
    traditions and is hereby condemned.
        Sec. 2. The Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, in writing to 
    the chairman of the Select Committee To Study Censure Charges (Mr. 
    Watkins) after the select committee had issued its report and 
    before the report was presented to the Senate charging three 
    members of the select committee with ``deliberate deception'' and 
    ``fraud'' for failure to disqualify themselves; in stating to the 
    press on November 4, 1954, that the special Senate session that was 
    to begin November 8, 1954, was a ``lynch party''; in repeatedly 
    describing this special Senate session as a ``lynch bee'' in a 
    nationwide television and radio show on November 7, 1954; in 
    stating to the public press on November 13, 1954, that the chairman 
    of the select committee (Mr. Watkins) was guilty of ``the most 
    unusual, most cowardly thing I've heard of'' and stating further: 
    ``I expected he would be afraid to answer the questions, but didn't 
    think he'd be stupid enough to make a public statement''; and in 
    characterizing the said committee as the ``unwitting handmaiden,'' 
    ``involuntary agent,'' and ``attorneys in fact'' of the Communist 
    Party and in charging that the said committee in writing its report 
    ``imitated Communist methods--that it distorted, misrepresented, 
    and omitted in its effort to manufacture a plausible 
    rationalization'' in support of its recommendations to the Senate, 
    which characterizations and charges were contained in a statement 
    released to the press and inserted in the Congressional Record of 
    November 10, 1954, acted contrary to senatorial ethics and tended 
    to bring the Senate into dishonor and disrepute, to obstruct the 
    constitutional processes of the Senate, and to impair its dignity; 
    and such conduct is hereby condemned.

    As noted above, one of the counts on which censure was voted in 
1954 concerned his conduct toward the Gillette subcommittee in 1952 
during the preceding Congress. The report of the select committee 
discussed at length the contention by Senator McCarthy that since he 
was re-elected in 1952, the committee lacked power to consider, as a 
basis for censure, any conduct on his part occurring prior to Jan. 3, 
1953, when he took his seat for a

[[Page 1750]]

new term (S. Rept. No. 2508, 83d Cong., pp. 20-23, 30, 31). The 
committee stated (p. 22):

        While it may be the law that one who is not a Member of the 
    Senate may not be punished for contempt of the Senate at a 
    preceding session, this is no basis for declaring that the Senate 
    may not censure one of its own Members for conduct antedating that 
    session, and no controlling authority or precedent has been cited 
    for such position.
        The particular charges against Senator McCarthy, which are the 
    basis of this category, involve his conduct toward an official 
    committee and official committee members of the Senate.

        The reelection of Senator McCarthy in 1952 was considered by 
    the select committee as a fact bearing on this proposition. This 
    reelection is not deemed controlling because only the Senate itself 
    can pass judgment upon conduct which is injurious to its processes, 
    dignity, and official committees.

    Elaborating on its view that only the Senate can pass judgment upon 
conduct adverse to its processes and committees, the select committee 
added (pp. 30-31):

        Nor do we believe that the reelection of Senator McCarthy by 
    the people of Wisconsin in the fall of 1952 pardons his conduct 
    toward the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections. The charge is 
    that Senator McCarthy was guilty of contempt of the Senate or a 
    senatorial committee. Necessarily, this is a matter for the Senate 
    and the Senate alone. The people of Wisconsin can only pass upon 
    issues before them; they cannot forgive an attack by a Senator upon 
    the integrity of the Senate's processes and its committees. That is 
    the business of the Senate.

Censure of Thomas J. Dodd

Sec. 16.3 The Senate, by resolution reported by its Select Committee on 
    Standards and Conduct, censured a Senator for exercising the power 
    and influence of his office to obtain and use for his personal 
    benefit funds from the public raised through political testimonials 
    and a political campaign.

    The Senate, by resolution reported by its Select Committee on 
Standards and Conduct,(6)  censured Senator Thomas J. Dodd, 
of Connecticut, for exercising the power and influence of his office to 
obtain and use for his personal benefit funds from the public raised 
through political testimonials and campaigns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 113 Cong. Rec. 17073, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., June 23, 1967 [S. Res. 
        112], S. Rept. No. 90-193.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The committee conducted hearings from June, 1966 through March, 
1967 on allegations that the Senator had misused campaign funds for 
personal purposes.(7)  From its investigations the committee 
concluded in its re

[[Page 1751]]

port that seven fund-raising events were held for the Senator for the 
period 1961 through 1965, and that the receipts from these totaled some 
$203,983. All but one of the events was represented as being held for 
political campaign purposes, either to raise funds for the Senator's 
1964 campaign or to pay off debts from his 1958 and 1964 campaigns for 
a seat in the Senate.(8)  The report stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. S. Rept. No. 90-193, p. 9.
 8. Id. at p. 24
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        From the circumstances of all the fund-raising events, 
    including the exclusive control of the funds by members of Senator 
    Dodd's staff, the extensive participation by members of Senator 
    Dodd's staff, the close political relationship between Senator Dodd 
    and the sponsors of the fund-raising events, the preoccupation of 
    the organizers with Senator Dodd's apparently political 
    indebtedness, and the partisan political nature of the printed 
    programs, Senator Dodd's knowledge of the political character of 
    these events must be presumed.(9) 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at p. 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the $203,983, Senator Dodd and the political 
committees supporting his re-election to the Senate in 1964 received 
campaign contributions of at least $246,290. The expenditure of these 
funds was summarized by the committee, as follows: (10) 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at p. 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        From the proceeds of the seven fund-raising events from 1961 
    through 1965 and the contributions to the 1964 political campaign, 
    Senator Dodd or his representatives received funds totaling at 
    least $450,273. From these funds, Senator Dodd authorized the 
    payment of at least $116,083 for his personal purposes. The 
    payments included Federal income tax, improvements to his 
    Connecticut home, club expenses, transfers to a member of his 
    family, and certain other transportation, hotel, restaurant and 
    other expenses incurred by Senator Dodd outside of Connecticut or 
    by members of his family or his representatives outside of the 
    political campaign period. Senator Dodd further authorized the 
    payment of an additional amount of at least $45,233 from these 
    proceeds for purposes which are neither clearly personal nor 
    political. These payments were for repayment of his loans in the 
    sum of $41,500 classified by Senator Dodd as ``political-personal'' 
    and $3,733 for bills for food and beverages.

    In addition, after the 1964 campaign, Senator Dodd received a 
campaign contribution of $8,000 from the International Latex Corp., 
and, for a period of 21 months, he accepted as gifts the loans of three 
automobiles in succession from a constituent and used them for personal 
transportation.(11) 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. On seven trips from 1961 through 1965, Senator Dodd requested and 
        accepted reimbursement from both the Senate and private 
        organizations for the same travel. Id. at p. 25. This was a 
        charge which the committee included in its censure resolution, 
        but which was deleted by an amendment offered by Senator Allen 
        J. Ellender (La.). See 113 Cong. Rec. 17020, 90th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., June 23, 1967.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1752]]

    The committee found Senator Dodd's conduct censurable, as follows: 
(12) 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. S. Rept. No. 90-193, p. 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Senator Dodd exercised the influence and power of his office as 
    a United States Senator to directly or indirectly obtain funds from 
    the public through testimonials which were political in character, 
    over a period of five years from 1961 to 1965. The notices of these 
    fund-raising events received by the public either stated that the 
    funds were for campaign expenses or deficits or failed to state for 
    what purposes the funds were to be used. Not one solicitation 
    letter, invitation, ticket, program, or other written communication 
    informed the public that the funds were to be used for personal 
    purposes. Senator Dodd used part of the proceeds from these 
    political testimonials and part of the contributions from his 
    political campaign of 1964 for his personal benefit. These acts, 
    together with his requesting and accepting reimbursements from 1961 
    through 1965 for expenses from both the Senate and private 
    organizations for the same travel, comprise a course of conduct 
    which deserves the censure of the Senate, is contrary to accepted 
    morals, derogates from the public trust expected of a Senator, and 
    tends to bring the Senate into dishonor and disrepute

    The committee reported a resolution of censure, as follows:

        Resolved, That it is the judgment of the Senate that the 
    Senator from Connecticut, Thomas J. Dodd, for having engaged in a 
    course of conduct over a period of five years from 1961 to 1965 of 
    exercising the influence and power of his office as a United States 
    Senator, as shown by the conclusions in the investigation by the 
    Select Committee on Standards and Conduct
        (a) to obtain and use for his personal benefit, funds from the 
    public through political testimonials and a political campaign, and
        (b) to request and accept reimbursements for expenses from both 
    the Senate and private organizations for the same travel 
    (13)  deserved the censure of the Senate; and he is so 
    censured for his conduct, which is contrary to accepted morals, 
    derogates from the public trust expected of a Senator, and tends to 
    bring the Senate into dishonor and disrepute.(14) 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See footnote 11, supra.
14. S. Res. 112, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Debate on the resolution (15)  began on June 13, 
1967.(16)  Senator John Stennis, of Mississippi, chairman of 
the committee, stated to the Senate that the censure resolution was not 
bottomed upon any one specific action or violation, nor on one 
expenditure or a few expenditures and not on one matter which could 
have been an error. He said:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. The resolution, S. Res. 112, was introduced Apr. 27, 1967; see 113 
        Cong. Rec. 10977.
16. 113 Cong. Rec. 15663, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . It is based on the fact that the practice happened over 
    and over and

[[Page 1753]]

    over again, so much so, and over a long period of time, as to 
    become a pattern of operation.
        The words used in the charge itself are ``course of conduct.'' 
    It amounted to a course of conduct that was wrong on its face, and 
    therefore brought the Senate into disrepute.(17) 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Id. at p. 15664.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 22, Senator John Tower, of Texas, offered an amendment to 
delete ``censure'' and substitute therefor ``reprimand.'' He declared 
that: (18) 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at p. 16979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        This proposal would give us the opportunity to express our 
    displeasure, our disapproval, and our disassociation, but at the 
    same time avoid the severity of censure . . . inasmuch as there is 
    no precedent for censure on the basis of means of raising funds for 
    private political use, in the absence of an existing rule or code 
    on the subject.

    The amendment was defeated, 9 to 87.(19) 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at p. 16986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After debate, which continued until June 23, 1967, the Senate 
adopted the resolution, by a vote of yeas 92, nays 5, after first 
striking the second charge relating to double-billing for several 
trips.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at p. 17020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------