{
  "id": "95-949",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "95-949",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 100567,
      "date": "1999-12-03",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:40:42.398941",
      "title": "Staff Depositions in Congressional Investigations",
      "summary": "Depositions have been used in a relatively small number of major congressional investigations in\nthe\nlast quarter of a century. Depositions in the legislative branch are often taken by committee staff, but\nMembers sometimes are involved in the process. Depositions may be a desirable alternative to a\ncommittee hearing, enabling a panel to obtain the information that it needs quickly, confidentially, and\nwithout the attendance of Members. However, concerns have been raised that staff depositions may\ncompromise the rights of deponents and restrict the role of the minority in the investigative process.\n  On a number of occasions, authority for committee staff to take depositions has been granted\npursuant to Senate and House resolutions. Committees that have been granted deposition authority\noften adopt rules establishing procedures for depositions. \n  Assuming,  arguendo , that staff depositions are appropriately authorized, the two\n main legal\nissues presented by these depositions are (a) enforcement of a subpoena for a staff deposition and (b)\nsanctions for false statements in such a deposition.\n  There are three methods of citing a witness for contempt of Congress. Statutory criminal\ncontempt (2 U.S.C. Section Section 192 and 194) and the inherent contempt power may be utilized\nby either the Senate or the House. The statutory civil contempt mechanism (28 U.S.C. Section \n1365) is, by its terms, available only to the Senate. It may be argued that any of these three methods\ncould be utilized to enforce a subpoena for a staff deposition. However, in recent investigations in\nwhich the House has authorized staff depositions by a standing committee, the majority and minority\nhave debated the propriety of citing a deponent for contempt for failure to appear at such a\ndeposition or to answer questions in such a proceeding if he subsequently responds fully at a\ncommittee hearing.\n  A witness who makes a false statement in a deposition given before committee staff might be\nprosecuted under various statutory provisions, including 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 (false statements), \nSection 1505 (obstruction of investigation), or Section 1621 (perjury). Of course, a prosecution\nunder the perjury statute would be possible only if the witness was placed under oath. In resolutions\nadopted in recent years authorizing depositions, the House and Senate often have provided for the\ntaking of such depositions under oath, arguably indicating that, in the view of Congress, statements\nat such depositions could be subject to a perjury prosecution. Although judicial decisions afford an\ninadequate basis for a definitive determination as to whether all of the elements of the perjury statute\ncould be satisfied in a prosecution of a witness for a statement made in a staff deposition,\nadministration of an oath puts a witness on notice of the significance attached by the committee to\nhis deposition.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/95-949",
          "sha1": "553c270e559ed02ac578a6f62a7a4efc446838c4",
          "filename": "files/19991203_95-949_553c270e559ed02ac578a6f62a7a4efc446838c4.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/19991203_95-949_553c270e559ed02ac578a6f62a7a4efc446838c4.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "American Law"
  ]
}