The house has Constitutional power to arrest for contempt, and has never once used it.
“The house has Constitutional power to arrest for contempt...”
Oh yeah? Who’s going to do it? The sergeant-at-arms?
Where would they put the people if they could arrest them? Is there a Congressional jail?
Even if what you say is correct, they certainly can’t indict anyone, and an arrest without an indictment is meaningless.
No, it does not. You are misinformed. The House has the power to hold that someone is in contempt, but the power to physically arrest and enforce that contempt finding lies with the Executive Branch, and federal marshals. And obviously, the Administration wasn't going to do that.
Here's the thing -- generally, you get one chance with a witness. So you don't want to depose them -- which is what these hearings essentially are -- until you have all the necessary documents. Otherwise, you will miss lines of questioning, not be able to compare the testimony to documentary evidence, etc..
The government stonewalled the Committee for a long time, so they couldn't get the documents needed to properly question the witnesses. That greatly delayed the testimony. I have a ton of sympathy for that because I've been in the same situation of a case dragging on because the other side won't produce documents they're supposed to produce. And here, even when the Administration did agree to produce documents, it sometimes took an incredibly long time. That wasn't Gowdy's fault, and he had no practical ability to force faster compliance.