Why would you assume that? I've scanned Article I, did not see any mention of Congress' ability to hold hearings or to compel people to testify at them. They're supposed to craft legislation, and police their own ranks, and produce a budget. No other powers, and definitely no subpoena powers. The concept of the subpoena is from English Common Law isn't it? So it's been adopted by our Judiciary, but it seems like congress was usurping Judiciary powers by holding "Congressional hearings" and by issuing subpoenas. There is no delineated power for Congress to enact any direct orders or controls over ordinary people. They can craft rules for Congresspeople and enforce them all they like, but in no way is there a delineated Constitutional power of Congress to compel any person to do anything, in particular to testify under oath. They can craft laws dictating general permissible behavior, but they can't make any laws that single out any person or organization, those are illegal and called "Bills of Attainder." So no, of course it's not "rhetorical," if you think you have information proving me wrong then spill it of STFU about it. Stop pretending you know something and actually prove that you know something I don;t. If you prove me wrong, I'll learn and change my mind, that's how it's supposed to work. What you appear to be doing is acting as if what I said was somehow obviously incorrect, and you don't even need to point out where. That's how liberals "argue," by acting as if someone is crazy for even asking the question.