"Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited for contempt is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subject to punishment that the House may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from the contempt citation)."...
"In the case of contempt, Congress began early in its history to protect its ability to compel testimony to it by private citizens and executive officials by arresting and jailing — in the Capitol — those who refused to cooperate. The first case dates to 1795. The Supreme Court in 1821, in Anderson v. Dunn, recognized Congress’ inherent power but noted that the power was limited to “the least power adequate to the end proposed,” and the court limited imprisonment, saying it could not last beyond the adjournment of Congress. Congress passed a statute in 1857 to allow longer terms of imprisonment as well as allowing it to turn contempt cases over to the courts for indictment and trial, with penalties including fines of “not more than $1,000 nor less than $100” and imprisonment “in a common jail of not less than one month nor more than twelve months.”
From an old article during Bush days.... http://www.pensitoreview.com/2007/07/26/jail-cells-in-us-capitol-building-available-for-rove-miers/
I'm not a lawyer but it seems they can hold them until the issue is addressed by the courts.
= new reply since forum marked as read
