    [Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 104th Congress]
    [104th Congress]
    [House Document 103-342]
    [Jeffersons Manual of ParliamentaryPractice]
    [Pages 155-160]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

                      SEC. XIII.--EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES.

    Sec. 341. Common fame as ground for
    investigation.

      Common  fame is a good ground for the House to proceed by
    inquiry, and even to accusation. Resolution House of Commons, 1 Car., 1,
    1625; Rush, L. Parl., 115; Grey, 16-22, 92; 8 Grey, 21, 23, 27, 45.

    <>
    Witnesses are not to be produced but where the House has previously
    instituted an inquiry, 2 Hats., 102, nor then are orders for their
    attendance given blank. 3 Grey, 51.

      In the House of Representatives common fame has been held sufficient
    to justify procedure for inquiry (III, 2701), as in a case wherein it
    was stated on the authority of ``common rumor'' that a Member had been
    menaced (III, 2678). The House also has voted to investigate with a view
    to impeachment on the basis of common fame, as in the cases of Judges
    Chase (III, 2342), Humphreys (III, 2385), and Durell (III, 2506).

    [[Page 156]]
    chairman of the committee or by any other member designated by the
    committee. Sometimes the House authorizes issue of subpoenas during a
    recess of Congress and empowers the Speaker to sign them (III, 1806),
    and in one case the two Houses, by concurrent resolution, empowered the
    Vice President and Speaker to sign during a recess (III, 1763). (See
    Barry v. U.S. ex. rel. Cunningham, 279 U.S. 597; McGrain v. Daugherty,
    273 U.S. 135; Sinclair v. United States, 279 U.S. 263).

      In the House of Representatives witnesses are summoned in pursuance
    and by virtue of the authority conferred on a committee by the House to
    send for persons and papers (III, 1750). Even in cases wherein the rules
    give to certain committees the authority to investigate without securing
    special permission, authority must be obtained before the production of
    testimony may be compelled (IV, 4316). The rules require that subpoenas
    issued by order of the House be signed by the Speaker (clause 4 of rule
    I) and attested and sealed by the Clerk (clause 3 of rule III). However,
    in clause 2(m) of rule XI the House has authorized any committee or
    subcommittee to issue a subpoena when authorized by a majority of the
    members of the committee or subcommittee voting, a majority being
    present. A committee may also delegate the authority to issue subpoenas
    to the chairman of a full committee. Authorized subpoenas are signed by
    the

    Sec. 343. Examination of witnesses in the House and in
    committee.

      When  any person is examined before a committee or at the bar of
    the House, any Member wishing to ask the person a question must address
    it to the Speaker or chairman, who repeats the question to the person,
    or says to him, ``You hear the question--answer it.'' But if the
    propriety of the question be objected to, the Speaker directs the
    witness, counsel, and parties to withdraw; for no question can be moved
    or put or debated while they are there. 2 Hats., 108. Sometimes the
    questions are previously settled in writing before the witness enters.
    Ib., 106, 107; 8 Grey, 64. The questions asked must be entered in the
    journals. 3 Grey, 81. But the testimony given in answer before the House
    is never written down; but before a committee, it must be, for the
    information of the House, who are not present to hear it. 7 Grey, 52,
    334.

    [[Page 157]]
    tions and answers of record for report to the House. To sustain a
    conviction of perjury, a quorum of a committee must be in attendance
    when the testimony is given (Christoffel v. United States, 338 U.S. 84).
    Certain criminal statutes make it a felony to give perjurious testimony
    before a Congressional committee (18 U.S.C. 1621), to intimidate
    witnesses before committees (18 U.S.C. 1505), or to make false
    statements in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or
    agency of the United States (18 U.S.C. 1001). The latter statute had
    been interpreted to include false statements made by Members to Congress
    or courts, but in Hubbard v. United States, 94 U.S. 172 (1995), the
    Supreme Court held that 18 U.S.C. 1001 did not apply to statements made
    to Congress or the courts.
      The Committee of the Whole of the House of Representatives was charged
    with an investigation in 1792, but the procedure was wholly exceptional
    (III, 1804), although a statute still empowers the Chairman of the
    Committee of the Whole, as well as the Speaker, chairmen of select or
    standing committees, and Members to administer oaths to witnesses (2
    U.S.C. 191; III, 1769). Most inquiries, in the modern practice, are
    conducted by select or standing committees, and these in each case
    determine how they will conduct examinations (III, 1773, 1775). Clause
    2(k) of rule XI, contains provisions governing certain procedures at
    investigative hearings by committees (Sec. 712, infra). In one case a
    committee permitted a Member of the House not of the committee to
    examine a witness (III, 2403). Usually these investigations are reported
    stenographically, thus making the ques

      Another provision of the Federal criminal code (18 U.S.C. 6005)
    provides for ``use'' immunity for certain witnesses before either House
    or committees thereof as follows:

                     ``Sec. 6005. Congressional Proceedings.

      ``(a) In the case of any individual who has been or may be called to
    testify or provide other information at any proceeding before either
    House of Congress, or any committee, or any subcommittee of either
    House, or any joint committee of the two Houses, a United States
    district court shall issue, in accordance with subsection (b) of this
    section, upon the request of a duly authorized representative of the
    House of Congress or the committee concerned, an order requiring such
    individual to give testimony or provide other information which he
    refuses to give or provide on the basis of his privilege against self-
    incrimination, such order to become effective as provided in section
    6002 of this part.

      ``(b) Before issuing an order under subsection (a) of this section, a
    United States district court shall find that--

              ``(1) in the case of a proceeding before either House of

            Congress, the request for such an order has been approved by an

            affirmative vote of a majority of the Members present of that

            House;

              ``(2) in the case of a proceeding before a committee or a

            subcommittee of either House of Congress or a joint committee of

            both Houses, the request for such an order has been approved by

            an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of the full

            committee; and

              ``(3) ten days or more prior to the day on which the request

            for such an order was made, the Attorney General was served with

            notice of an intention to request the order.

    [[Page 158]]

      ``(c) Upon application of the Attorney General, the United States
    district court shall defer the issuance of any order under subsection
    (a) of this section for such period, not longer than twenty days from
    the date of the request for such order, as the Attorney General may
    specify.''.

    Sec. 344. Earlier and later practice as to inquiries at
    the bar of the House.

      The  House, in its earlier years, arraigned and
    tried at its bar persons, not Members, charged with violation of its
    privileges, as in the cases of Randall, Whitney (II, 1599-1603),
    Anderson (II, 1606), and Houston (II, 1616); but in the case of Woods,
    charged with breach of privilege in 1870 (II, 1626-1628), the respondent
    was arraigned before the House, but was heard in his defense by counsel
    and witnesses before a standing committee. At the conclusion of that
    investigation the respondent was brought to the bar of the House while
    the House voted his punishment (II, 1628). The House has also arraigned
    at its bar contumacious witnesses before taking steps to punish by its
    own action or through the courts (III, 1685). In examinations at its bar
    the House has adopted forms of procedure as to questions (II, 1633,
    1768), providing that they be asked through the Speaker (II, 1602, 1606)
    or by a committee (II, 1617; III, 1668). And the questions to be asked
    have been drawn up by a committee, even when put by the Speaker (II,
    1633). In the earlier practice the answer of a witness at the bar was
    not written down (IV, 2874); but in the later practice the answers
    appear in the journal (III, 1668). The person at the bar withdraws while
    the House passes on an incidental question (II, 1633; III, 1768). (See
    McGrain v. Dougherty, 273 U.S. 135; Barry v. U.S. ex. rel. Cunningham,
    279 U.S. 597; Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125).

    Sec. 345. Procuring attendance of a witness in custody of
    the other House.

      If  either House have occasion for the presence of a
    person in custody of the other, they ask the other their leave that he
    may be brought up to them in custody. 3 Hats., 52.

    Sec. 346. Members as witnesses.

      A  Member, in his place,
    gives information to the House of what he knows of any matter under
    hearing at the bar. Jour. H. of C., Jan. 22, 1744-5.

    [[Page 159]]
    tered the oath to himself and testified (III, 1821). The House, in an
    inquiry preliminary to an impeachment trial, gave leave to its managers
    to examine Members, and leave to its Members to attend for the purpose
    (III, 2033).

      At an examination at the bar of the House in 1795 both the written
    information given by Members and their verbal testimony were required to
    be under oath (II, 1602). In a case not of actual examination at the
    bar, but wherein the House was deliberating on a proposition to order
    investigation, it demanded by resolution that certain Members produce
    papers and information (III, 1726, 1811). Members often give testimony
    before committees of investigation, and in at least one case the Speaker
    has thus appeared (III, 1776). But in a case wherein a committee
    summoned a Member to testify as to a statement made by him in debate he
    protested that it was an invasion of his constitutional privilege (III,
    1777, 1778; see also H. Rept. 1372, 67th Cong. and Cong. Rec. 5, 1923,
    pp. 2415-23). In one instance the chairman of an investigating committee
    adminis

    Sec. 347. Method of obtaining testimony of a Member of
    the other House.

      Either  House may request, but not command, the attendance of
    a Member of the other. They are to make the request by message of the
    other House, and to express clearly the purpose of attendance, that no
    improper subject of examination may be tendered to him. The House then
    gives leave to the Member to attend, if he choose it; waiting first to
    know from the Member himself whether he chooses to attend, till which
    they do not take the message into consideration. But when the peers are
    sitting as a court of criminal judicature, they may order attendance,
    unless where it be a case of impeachment by the Commons. There it is to
    be a request. 3 Hats., 17; 9 Grey, 306, 406; 10 Grey, 133.

      The House of Representatives and the Senate have observed this rule;
    but it does not appear that they have always made public ascertainment
    of the willingness of the Member to attend (III, 1790, 1791). In one
    case the Senate laid aside pending business in order to comply with the
    request of the House (III, 1791). In several instances House committees,
    after their invitations to Senators to appear and testify had been
    disregarded, have issued subpoenas. In such cases the Senators have
    either disregarded the subpoenas, refused to obey them, or have appeared
    under protest (III, 1792, 1793). In one case, after a Senator had
    neglected to respond either to an invitation or a subpoena the House
    requested of the Senate his attendance and the Senate disregarded the
    request (III, 1794). Where Senators have responded to invitations of
    House committees, their testimony has been taken without obtaining
    consent of the Senate (III, 1793, 1795, footnote).

    [[Page 160]]

    Sec. 348. Admission of counsel.

      Counsel  are to be heard only
    on private, not on public, bills and on such points of law only as the
    House shall direct. 10 Grey, 61.

      In 1804 the House admitted the counsel of certain corporations to
    address the House on pending matters of legislation (V, 7298), and in
    1806 voted that a claimant might be heard at the bar (V, 7299); but in
    1808, after consideration, the House by a large majority declined to
    follow again the precedent of 1804 (V, 7300). In early years counsel in
    election cases were heard at the bar at the discretion of the House (I,
    657, 709, 757, 765); but in 1836, after full discussion, the practice
    was abandoned (I, 660), and, with one exception in 1841 (I, 659), has
    not been revived, even for the case of a contestant who could not speak
    the English language (I, 661). Counsel appear before committees in
    election cases, however. Where witnesses and others have been arraigned
    at the bar of the House for contempt, the House has usually permitted
    counsel (II, 1601, 1616; III, 1667), sometimes under conditions (II,
    1604, 1616); but in a few cases has declined the request (II, 1608; III,
    1666, footnote). In investigations before committees counsel usually
    have been admitted (III, 1741, 1846, 1847), sometimes even to assist a
    witness (III, 1772), and clause 2(k)(3) of rule XI now provides that
    witnesses at investigative hearings may be accompanied by their own
    counsel for the purpose of advising them concerning their constitutional
    rights (Sec. 712). In examinations preliminary to impeachment counsel
    usually have been admitted (III, 1736, 2470, 2516) unless in cases
    wherein such proceedings were ex parte. During its investigation into
    charges of impeachment against President Nixon, the Committee on the
    Judiciary admitted counsel to the President to be present, to make
    presentations and to examine witnesses during investigatory hearings (H.
    Rept. 93-1305, Aug. 20, 1974, p. 29219).

      At one time the House required all counsel or agents representing
    persons or corporations before committees to be registered with the
    Clerk (III, 1771). The Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act (Title III of
    the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946) requires all lobbyists to
    register with the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate (2
    U.S.C. 267).