[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 4, Chapters 15 - 17]
[Chapter 15. Investigations and Inquiries]
[D. Authority in Cases of Contempt]
[Â§ 18. Time for Consideration]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 2416-2423]
 
                               CHAPTER 15
 
                      Investigations and Inquiries
 
                   D. AUTHORITY IN CASES OF CONTEMPT
 
Sec. 18. Time for Consideration

Reports

Sec. 18.1 A report from a committee relating to the refusal of a 
    witness to produce certain subpenaed documents is privileged; it is 
    presented and read before a resolution is offered directing the 
    Speaker to certify the refusal to a U.S. Attorney.

    On Aug. 23, 1960,(13) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
indicated the order in which to read a report and resolution relating 
to contempt of a witness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 106 Cong. Rec. 17278, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a 
    question

[[Page 2417]]

    of the privilege of the House and offer a resolution which I send 
    to the Clerk's desk along with a privileged report (Rept. No. 2117) 
    of the Committee on the Judiciary detailing the facts concerning 
    the contumacious conduct of the subject of the resolution.
        The Speaker: The Chair would think that the gentleman would 
    desire to file the report first and then offer the resolution.
        Mr. Celler: The report has been filed, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will read the report, 
    then.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. This report cited Austin J. Tobin, executive director of the Port 
        Authority of New York for contempt for his refusal to submit 
        subpenaed documents before Subcommittee No. 5 of the Committee 
        on the Judiciary. The resolution, H. Res. 606, authorized the 
        Speaker to certify the report to a U.S. Attorney. See 106 Cong. 
        Rec. 17281, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 23, 1960, for the text of 
        this resolution and 106 Cong. Rec. 17313 (H. Rept. No. 2120) 
        and 17316 (H. Res. 607), 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 23, 1960, 
        for similar proceedings against S. Sloan Colt, chairman of the 
        board of commissioners of the Authority; and 106 Cong. Rec. 
        17316 (H. Rept. No. 2121) and 17319 (H. Res. 608), 86th Cong. 
        2d Sess., Aug. 23, 1960, for similar proceedings against Joseph 
        G. Carty, secretary of the authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 18.2 Because a report on the contemptuous conduct of a witness 
    before a committee gives rise to a question of privileges of the 
    House (relating both to the implied constitutional power of the 
    House and its authority under Rule IX to dispose directly of 
    questions affecting the dignity and integrity of House 
    proceedings), it is privileged for consideration immediately upon 
    presentation to the House.

    On July 13, 1971,(15) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
ruled that House Report No. 92-349, citing the Columbia Broadcasting 
System, Inc. and its president, Frank Stanton, for contempt for refusal 
to submit subpenaed materials to the Committee on Interstate and 
Foreign Commerce, was privileged under Rule IX,(16) and 
consequently could be considered on the same day it was reported 
notwithstandIng the requirement of Rule XI clause 
27(d)(4),(17) that reports from committees be available to 
Members for at least three calendar days prior to their consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 117 Cong. Rec. 24720, 24721, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
16. House Rules and Manual Sec. 661 (1973).
17. House Rules and Manual Sec. 735(d)(4) (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proceeding Against Frank Stanton and Columbia Broadcasting System, 
                                    Inc.

        Mr. [Harley O.] Staggers [of West Virginia]: I rise to a 
    question of the

[[Page 2418]]

    privilege of the House, and I submit a privileged report (Report 
    No. 92-349).
        The Clerk proceeded to read the report.
        Mr. [Sam M.] Gibbons [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise 
    a point of order against the consideration of this matter at this 
    time.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Gibbons: Mr. Speaker, I rise to object to the consideration 
    of this matter at this time in that I believe that it violates 
    clause 27, subparagraph (d)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of the House 
    of Representatives.
        Mr. Speaker, I refer to the language contained on page 381 of 
    the House Rules and Manual, 92d Congress. I would call your 
    attention to the fact that the rule, subparagraph (d)(4), clause 27 
    of rule XI was adopted last year in the Legislative Reorganization 
    Act, and was readopted earlier this year.
        Mr. Speaker, I think it would be best if I read just a portion 
    of the rule, and this rule reads as follows:

            A measure or matter reported by any committee (except the 
        Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on House 
        Administration, the Committee on Rules, and the Committee on 
        Standards of Official Conduct) shall not be considered in the 
        House unless the report of that committee upon that measure or 
        matter has been available to the Members of the House for at 
        least three calendar days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and 
        legal holidays) prior to the consideration of that measure or 
        matter in the House.

        Now, there is some more to that rule. The next sentence goes on 
    to deal with the hearings of the committee, but then there is an 
    exception to that rule, and it is:

            This subparagraph shall not apply to--
            (A) any measure for the declaration of war or the 
        declaration of a national emergency, by the Congress; and
            (B) any executive decision, determination, or action which 
        would become, or continue to be, effective unless disapproved 
        or otherwise invalidated by one or both Houses of Congress.

        Mr. Speaker, that rule was adopted last year. I have examined 
    the committee report. It is obvious the reasoning for its adoption 
    was to prevent the premature or rapid or precipitous consideration 
    of matters such as this kind, even though they dealt with a matter 
    of privilege. The matter of privileged matters is specifically not 
    excepted from this rule because I think many Members helping to 
    frame these rule changes last year felt that the Congress had not 
    acted wisely on some of these things that have come up pretty fast.
        The committee report, which is still classified as a committee 
    print, without any number, was not available until 10:30 this 
    morning. It is 272 pages long. I presume it is well written, I have 
    not had a chance to read it, and I doubt that very many other 
    Members have had a chance to read it in full.
        I would hope that the Chair would sustain this point of order. 
    I do not believe there is any grave emergency. I do not believe 
    that the person sought to be cited, or the organization sought to 
    be cited are about to leave the country. I would hope that the 
    House could

[[Page 2419]]

    consider this matter in a more rational manner and after it has had 
    the opportunity to read and examine the report.
        Mr. Speaker, I realize that some may say a matter of this sort 
    is a matter of privilege and, therefore, is excepted from the rule. 
    It is my contention, Mr. Speaker, that the matter of privilege was 
    specifically not excluded from the requirement of a 3-day lay-over 
    for the printing of the report but that the Committees on 
    Appropriations, House Administration, Rules, and Standards of 
    Official Conduct--those being the committees that generally deal 
    with matters of privilege--were set down under specific exception 
    and that it was never intended that citations such as this could be 
    considered in such a preemptive type of procedure as is now about 
    to take place.
        Mr. [Ogden R.] Reid of New York: Mr. Speaker, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. Gibbons: l yield to the gentleman.
        Mr. Reid of New York: Mr. Speaker, in furtherance of the point 
    that the gentleman is making, if the Chair will look at rule IX, it 
    states in the rule:

            Questions of privilege shall be, first, those affecting the 
        rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the 
        integrity of its proceedings;

        I would say, Mr. Speaker, that the 3-day rule is an important 
    principle, uniquely relevant to the Constitutional question. This 
    is the very idea of the 3-day rule and I believe that today to rush 
    through an important question does not comport with an enlightened 
    discharge of our responsibility.
        Mr. Speaker, I hope the point of order is upheld.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
    Staggers) desire to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Staggers: I do, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman is recognized.
        Mr. Staggers: Mr. Speaker, rule IX provides that ``Question of 
    privilege shall be, first, those affecting the rights of the House 
    collectively''--as the gentleman from New York has just read--``its 
    safety, dignity and the integrity of its proceedings.''
        Privileges of the House includes questions relating to those 
    powers to punish for contempt witnesses who are summoned to give 
    information.
        House Rule 27(d) of rule XI the so-called 3-day rule, clearly 
    does not apply to questions relating to privileges of the House. 
    The rule applies only to simple measures or matters reported by any 
    committee. It excludes matters arising from the Committee on 
    Appropriations, House Administration, Rules, and Standards of 
    Official Conduct.
        It is clear that the terms ``measure'' or ``matter'' as used in 
    rule 27(d) do not apply to questions of privilege.
        To apply it in such a way would utterly defeat the whole 
    concept of the question of privilege.
        Too, a privileged motion takes precedence over all other 
    questions except the motion to adjourn.
        The fact that the 3-day rule excludes routine matters from the 
    Appropriations, Administration, Rules, and Standards of Official 
    Conduct Committees clearly shows that the 3-day rule does not apply 
    to privileged questions.
        If the rule were meant to apply to questions of privilege, it 
    surely would not make exceptions for routine business coming from 
    regular standing committees.

[[Page 2420]]

        The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair appreciates the fact that the gentleman from Florida 
    has furnished him with a copy of the point of order which he has 
    raised and has given the Chair an opportunity to consider it.
        The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gibbons) makes a point of order 
    against the consideration of the report from the Committee on 
    Interstate and Foreign Commerce on the grounds that it has not been 
    available to Members for at least 3 days as required by clause 
    27(d)(4) of rule XI. The Chair had been advised that such a point 
    of order might be raised and has examined the problems involved.
        The Chair has studied clause 27(d)(4) of rule XI and the 
    legislative history in connection with its inclusion in the 
    Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970.
        That clause provides that ``a matter shall not be considered in 
    the House unless the report has been available for at least 3 
    calendar days.''
        The Chair has also examined rule IX, which provides that:

            Questions of privilege shall be, first, those affecting the 
        rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the 
        integrity of its proceedings . . . and shall have precedence of 
        all other questions, except motions to adjourn.

        Under the precedents, a resolution raising a question of the 
    privileges of the House does not necessarily require a report from 
    a committee. Immediate consideration of a question of privilege of 
    the House is inherent in the whole concept of privilege. When a 
    resolution is presented, the House may then make a determination 
    regarding its disposition.
        When a question is raised that a witness before a House 
    committee has been contemptuous, it has always been recognized that 
    the House has the implied power under the Constitution to deal 
    directly with such conduct so far as is necessary to preserve and 
    exercise its legislative authority. However, punishment for 
    contemptuous conduct involving the refusal of a witness to testify 
    or produce documents is now generally governed by law--Title II, 
    United States Code, sections 192-194--which provides that whenever 
    a witness fails or refuses to appear in response to a committee 
    subpena, or fails or refuses to testify or produce documents in 
    response thereto, such fact may be reported to the House. Those 
    reports are of high privilege.
        When a resolution raising a question of privilege of the House 
    is submitted by a Member and called up as privileged, that 
    resolution is also subject to immediate disposition as the House 
    shall determine.
        The implied power under the Constitution for the House to deal 
    directly with matters necessary to preserve and exercise its 
    legislative authority; the provision in rule IX that questions of 
    privilege of the House shall have precedence of all other 
    questions; and the fact that the report of the committee has been 
    filed by the gentleman from West Virginia as privileged--all refute 
    the argument that the 3-day layover requirement of clause 27(d)(4) 
    applies in this situation.
        The Chair holds that the report is of such high privilege under 
    the inherent constitutional powers of the House and

[[Page 2421]]

    under rule IX that the provisions of clause 27(d)(4) of rule XI are 
    not applicable.
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.
        The Clerk will continue to read the report.

Point of Order Regarding House Trial

Sec. 18.3 The point of order was made that the House should itself try 
    contempt cases, rather than certify such matters to the courts; the 
    report which was objected to having just been read, the Speaker 
    indicated that submission of such issue (which is one to be decided 
    by the House) should be postponed until a resolution was actually 
    presented for consideration by the House.

    On May 28, 1936,(18) after the reading of a privileged 
report from the Select Committee on Investigating Old Age Pensions, 
House Report No. 2857, regarding contempt of Dr. Francis E. Townsend, 
president and founder, and two members of the national board of 
directors of Old Age Revolving Pensions, Ltd., for failure to provide 
subpenaed testimony and documents, Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of 
Tennessee, responded to a point of order regarding the procedure to try 
and punish contempt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 80 Cong. Rec. 8221, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas L.] Blanton [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order that under the Constitution of the United States the 
    House of Representatives of the legislative branch is a separate 
    and distinct department of government from the judiciary, or the 
    courts, that this is undoubtedly a contempt of the House of 
    Representatives, the legislative branch, and is a contempt that 
    should be tried and punished, not by the courts, but by the House 
    of Representatives itself. We ought not to pass the buck to the 
    courts. We ought to assume the responsibility ourselves.
        I admit that all three witnesses clearly are in contempt, and 
    deserve punishment and that the House ought to try these three 
    witnesses, convict them of contempt, and punish all three of them 
    with a heavy fine and send them all to jail, until they can have 
    some respect for the institutions of their country. I therefore 
    make the point of order that the House of Representatives should 
    try its own contempt proceedings and fix its own punishment.
        The Speaker: That matter is not under discussion now. This is 
    simply a report from a select committee which has been read and 
    which has been ordered printed. The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from Missouri.
        It should be noted that the Speaker did not indicate that the 
    point of order, even if timely, would have been valid. Rather, the 
    Speaker implied that such

[[Page 2422]]

    issues were to be determined by the House by voting on whatever 
    resolution was presented to the House.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 19.2, infra, for a discussion of the proceedings as they 
        relate to the authority of a committee to report the contempts 
        of witnesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Resolutions

Sec. 18.4 A resolution directing the Speaker to certify to the U.S. 
    Attorney the refusal of a witness to respond to a subpena issued by 
    a House committee may be offered from the floor as privileged and 
    may be disposed of immediately.

    On July 13, 1971,(20) House Resolution 534, authorizing 
the Speaker to certify to the U.S. Attorney a report citing the 
contemptuous refusal of the Columbia Broadcasting System and its 
president, Frank Stanton, to respond to a subpena duces tecum issued by 
the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and House Report No. 
92-349, citing this contempt, were offered from the floor. The 
resolution was considered as privileged by the Speaker.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 117 Cong. Rec. 24720, 24721, 24723, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.; see 
        Sec. 18.2, supra, for the text of the point of order and ruling 
        regarding the privileged status of the report.
 1. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 18.5 Because it is a matter of high privilege, a resolution 
    directing the Speaker to certify an individual in contempt may be 
    called up at any time.

    On Aug. 2, 1946,(2) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
responded to a parliamentary inquiry regarding the privileged status of 
a resolution authorizing the Speaker to certify an individual in 
contempt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 92 Cong. Rec. 10746, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     Proceeding Against Richard Morford

        The Speaker: For what purpose does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi rise?
        Mr [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I send to 
    the Clerk's desk a privileged resolution and ask that it be read.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will read the resolution.
        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, has not the Speaker the power to 
    determine the order of business by recognizing or not recognizing 
    gentlemen requesting the consideration of various pieces of 
    legislation? I make that parliamentary inquiry because there is 
    very important business pending before the House--social security, 
    appro

[[Page 2423]]

    priations for terminal-leave pay, and for automobiles for 
    amputees--and I see no reason why this resolution should be given 
    preference.
        The Speaker: It would not be given preference if it were an 
    ordinary resolution, but this is a resolution of high privilege.

Calendar Wednesday

Sec. 18.6 A report of a committee citing a witness for contempt was 
    considered on Calendar Wednesday.

    On June 26, 1946,(3) Calendar Wednesday, the House 
considered a privileged report from the Committee on Un-American 
Activities, House Report No. 2354, citing Corliss G. Lamont, chairman 
of the National Council of American-Soviet Friendship, Inc., for 
contempt for his refusal to produce subpoenaed materials.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See 92 Cong. Rec. 7589-91, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., for the text of the 
        report.
 4. This report is discussed at Sec. 19.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------