[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 3, Chapters 10 - 14]
[Chapter 11. Questions of Privilege]
[C. Basis of Questions of Privilege of the House]
[Â§ 12. Enforcement of Committee Orders and Subpenas]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 1614-1616]
 
                               CHAPTER 11
 
                         Questions of Privilege
 
            C. BASIS OF QUESTIONS OF PRIVILEGE OF THE HOUSE
 
Sec. 12. Enforcement of Committee Orders and Subpenas

Warrants Detaining Committee Witnesses

Sec. 12.1 A resolution authorizing the Speaker to issue a warrant 
    commanding the detention of a committee witness, based on 
    allegations that attempts had been made by the Senate to deprive 
    the committee of such witness' presence, gave rise to a question of 
    the privilege of the House.

    On Aug. 15, 1935,(17~) Mr. John J. O'Connor, of New 
York, rose to a question of the privilege of the House and offered a 
resolution (18) authorizing the Speaker to issue a warrant 
commanding the bodily detention of a committee witness, it being 
alleged that attempts had been made by the Senate to deprive the 
committee of such witness' presence. The resolution stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 79 Cong. Rec. 13289, 13290, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. H. Res. 340.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Whereas the House did on July 8, 1935, adopt a resolution, 
    House Resolution 288, authorizing the Committee on Rules to 
    investigate any and all charges of attempts or attempts to 
    intimidate or influence Members of the House of Representatives 
    with regard to the bill S. 2796 or any other bills affecting 
    public-utility holding companies during the Seventy-fourth Congress 
    by any person, partnership, trust, association, or corporation;
        Whereas under the authority conferred upon said Committee on 
    Rules by said House Resolution 288, the said committee had caused 
    to be issued a subpena directed to H.C. Hopson to ap

[[Page 1615]]

    pear before said committee and to testify concerning the matters 
    committed to the said Committee on Rules for investigation. . . .
        Whereas agents of another body have attempted to serve the said 
    H.C. Hopson at 11:30 a.m. on August 14 with a subpena in order to 
    compel the said H.C. Hopson to appear before another body forthwith 
    to give testi
    mony.
        . . . Whereas any interference with the proper proceeding of 
    the Committee on Rules in the investigation committed to them by 
    House Resolution 288 is an invasion of the prerogatives and 
    privileges of the House of Representatives. . . .
        . . . Therefore, be it
        Resolved, That the Speaker of the House of Representatives 
    issue his warrant commanding the Sergeant at Arms of the House of 
    Representatives, or his deputy, to take into custody the body of 
    H.C. Hopson wherever found; that the said Sergeant at Arms, or his 
    deputy, shall keep in custody the said H.C. Hopson until such time 
    as the Committee on Rules shall discharge him.
        Provided, however, That the said witness may be available for 
    examination by the Senate Committee at such times as his attendance 
    is not required by the House Committee.

    A point of order was raised by Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
asserting that the resolution did not give rise to a question of the 
privilege of the House. Following some debate, the point of order was 
overruled by the Chair, the Speaker (19) stating:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . As the Chair construes the resolution, it involves the 
    dignity and authority of the House. The House has authority to 
    protect its own agents and its own committees in the discharge of 
    the duties vested in them. It seems to the Chair that this is 
    distinctly a matter of privilege for the consideration of the 
    House. . . .
        The Chair repeats that the resolution is one which involves the 
    dignity and authority of the House in protecting its committees, 
    which in this instance happens to be the Committee on Rules, in the 
    investigation which it has been authorized to make. The Chair 
    overrules the point of order.

Orders Relating to Refusal of Witness to Be Sworn

Sec. 12.2 A committee report relating the refusal of a witness to be 
    sworn to testify before a House subcommittee involves a question of 
    the privilege of the House.

    On Sept. 10, 1973,(20) Mr. Lucien N. Nedzi, of Michigan, 
rose to a question of the privilege of the House and offered a report 
(1) from the Committee on Armed Services informing the House 
of the refusal of George Gordon Liddy to be sworn or to testify before 
its duly authorized subcommittee. Following the presen
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 119 Cong. Rec. 28951, 28952, 28959, 28960, 28962, 28963, 93d Cong. 
        1st Sess.
 1. H. Rept. No. 93-453.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1616]]

tation of the committee report, the House agreed to a privileged 
resolution (2) offered by Mr. Nedzi directing the Speaker 
(3) to certify to the appropriate United States attorney the 
refusal of the witness to be sworn to testify before a subcommittee of 
the Committee on Armed Services.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H. Res. 536.
 3. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Based upon the precedent in the 92d 
Congress, first session, July 13, 1971,(4) Representative 
Nedzi was advised that a committee report on the contempt of a witness 
could be brought to the floor on the same day as filed and that the 
requirement for a three-day layover under Rule XI clause 27(d)(4) did 
not apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 117 Cong. Rec. 24720-23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enforcement of Subpena Duces Tecum

Sec. 12.3 A committee report relating the refusal of a witness to 
    respond to a subpena duces tecum issued by a House subcommittee 
    gives rise to a question of the privilege of the House.

    On July 13, 1971,(5) Mr. Harley O. Staggers, of West 
Virginia, rose to a question of the privilege of the House and 
submitted a report (6) from the Committee on Interstate and 
Foreign Commerce informing the House of the refusal of Frank Stanton, 
president of CBS, to respond to a subpena duces tecum issued by a 
subcommittee of the committee. Subsequent to the presentation of the 
committee report, a privileged resolution (7) was offered by 
Mr. Staggers directing the Speaker (8) to certify the report 
of the House committee on the contemptuous conduct of the witness to 
the appropriate United States attorney. Some debate on the resolution 
ensued, at the conclusion of which the previous question on the 
resolution was moved by Mr. Staggers. Thereupon, Mr. Hastings Keith, of 
Massachusetts, asserting his opposition to the resolution, offered a 
motion to recommit the resolution to the Committee on Interstate and 
Foreign Commerce. The motion to recommit was agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 117 Cong. Rec. 24720-23, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. For additional 
        examples see 112 Cong. Rec. 27439-513, 27641, 89th Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Oct. 18 and 19, 1966; 80 Cong. Rec. 8219-21, 74th Cong. 
        2d Sess., May 28, 1936.
 6. H. Rept. No. 92-349.
 7. H. Res. 534.
 8. Carl Albert (Okla.).

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

[[Page 1617]]