Our holding regarding the compelled disclosure of privileged documents to agents of the Executive during the search makes clear that the special procedures described in the warrant affidavit are insufficient to protect the privilege under the Speech or Debate Clause. I, 6, cl. By creating the Filter Teams and [b]y requiring judicial approval before any arguably privileged documents could be shared with the prosecution team, the search procedures as a whole eliminated any realistic possibility that evidence of Rep. Jefferson's legislative acts would be used against him. Appellee's Br. 1334 LHOB, Rayburn Foyer Rep. Schweikert meets with Dr. Galgiani, Director of the University of Arizona Valley Fever Center for Excellence, and community leaders in Phoenix, Arizona. As Gravel noted, his aide's privilege derives from the Member's. Contrary to the Executive's understanding on appeal, it is incorrect to suggest that Congressman Jefferson's position is that he was entitled to prior notice of the search warrant before its execution, without regard to the Executive's interests in law enforcement. This chill runs counter to the Clause's purpose of protecting against disruption of the legislative process. The court also acknowledged that the Supreme Court's sensitivities in Gravel, 408 U.S. at 614, 92 S.Ct. 78dd-2(a); Counts 12-14, Money Laundering, 18 U.S.C. The Congressman contends that the exercise of his privilege under the Clause must precede the disclosure of the contents of his congressional office to agents of the Executive and that any violation of the privilege requires return of all of the seized materials. Accordingly, we hold that a search that allows agents of the Executive to review privileged materials without the Member's consent violates the Clause. Committee on Oversight and Accountability. Room No. This markup took place in 2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building. Washington, DC 20510(202) 224-9806USCapitolPolice@uscp.gov, United States Capitol Police Memorial Fund, https://www.aoc.gov/accessibility-services. He argued, inter alia, that the issuance and execution of the search warrant violated the Speech or Debate Clause and sought an order enjoining FBI and Justice Department review or inspection of the seized materials. 1100 LHOB (Ways and Means Committee) The area west of the Longworth Building on squares 635 and 636 was chosen, with the main entrance on Independence Avenue and garage and pedestrian entrances on South Capitol Street, C Street, and First Street Southwest. Kevin was first elected to Congress in 2006 and is a native of Bakersfield and a fourth-generation Kern County resident. 749, 15 L.Ed.2d 681 (1966)-another criminal case-as arising from the use of evidence of a legislative act to support the indictment. Rayburn House Office Building 50 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, D.C. 20515 Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:00pm Oakton Branch 10461 White Granite Drive Oakton, VA 22124 Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:00pm Saturday, 9:00am-12:00pm Before you take your next road trip, be sure you know exactly where to get your cash for free! [3], On May 20, 2006 FBI agents raided the Rayburn Building office of Democratic Congressman William J. Jefferson in connection to an ongoing bribery investigation, marking the first time the FBI had raided the office of a sitting congressman. With respect to our precedent, moreover, the government asserts that Brown & Williamson itself distinguished between civil subpoenas and criminal proceedings, and limited its holding to the former. Id. 2172 RHOB (Foreign Affairs Committee) Rayburn House Office Building 749 (Clause protect[s] [the legislature] against possible prosecution by an unfriendly executive and conviction by a hostile judiciary). (bribery of foreign official) and 18 U.S.C. Three days later, the court remanded the record to the district court to make findings regarding which, if any, documents (physical or electronic) removed from [the] Congressman['s] office pursuant to a search warrant executed on May 20, 2006, are records of legislative acts. Order of July 28, 2006 (Remand Order). Includes site before construction; demolition of Wonders Court, apartment houses, commercial and government buildings, and garages. denied, Office of Sen. Mark Dayton v. Hanson, 550U.S. Applying these principles, we conclude that the Congressman is entitled, as the district court may in the first instance determine pursuant to the Remand Order, to the return of all materials (including copies) that are privileged legislative materials under the Speech or Debate Clause. Capitol Visitor Center - Main entrance at First and East Capitol streets. Given this purpose, we concluded that the Clause permit[s] Congress to insist on the confidentiality of investigative files and therefore barred enforcement of the subpoena. Beginning on Saturday night, May 20, more than a dozen FBI agents spent about 18 hours in Room 2113. But indications as to what Congress is looking at provide clues as to what Congress is doing, or might be about to do-and this is true whether or not the documents are sought for the purpose of inquiring into (or frustrating) legislative conduct or to advance some other goals We do not share the Third Circuit's conviction that democracy's limited toleration for secrecy is inconsistent with an interpretation of the Speech or Debate Clause that would permit Congress to insist on the confidentiality of investigative files. 1813 (citing Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S. 306, 314, 93 S.Ct. 2614 (Clause does not privilege either Senator or aide to violate an otherwise valid criminal law in preparing for or implementing legislative acts (emphasis added)), so that Brown & Williamson's reference to Gravel's sensitivities to the existence of criminal proceedings against persons other than Members of Congress does no more than describe the Gravel facts, Brown & Williamson, 62 F.3d at 419. Committee on Education and the Workforce. See Brewster, 408 U.S. at 516, 92 S.Ct. Our task is to determine how to reconcile the scope of the protection that is afforded to a Member of Congress under the Speech or Debate Clause with the Executive's Article II responsibilities for law enforcement. 2237 RHOB (Judiciary Committee) Today, Congressman McCarthy, as Co-Chair of the Congressional Valley Fever Task Force, along with 16 of his colleagues in the House, sent a letter to National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Francis Collins in support of grant funding to help move a Valley Fever diagnostic tool into primary care settings, such as the family doctors office. Whether the violation requires, as the Congressman suggests, the return of all seized items, privileged as well as non-privileged, depends upon a determination of which documents are privileged and then, as to the non-privileged documents, a balancing of the separation of powers underlying the Speech or Debate Clause and the Executive's Article II, Section 3 law enforcement interest in the seized materials. See Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Williams, 62 F.3d 408 (D.C.Cir.1995) (Clause barred enforcement of subpoenas duces tecum issued to two members of House Subcommittee on Health and Environment); Maj. Op. Open 10:00 a.m. 5:00 p.m. daily, including all weekends and holidays.National Garden at 38. Conservatory The considerations voiced by our concurring colleague and the district court may demonstrate good faith by the Executive, but they fail to adhere to this court's interpretation of the scope of the testimonial privilege under the Speech or Debate Clause, much less to the Supreme Court's interpretation of what constitutes core legislative activities, see Brewster, 408 U.S. at 526, and the history of the Clause. The Supreme Court has not spoken to the precise issue at hand. Id. As [d]iscovery procedures can prove just as intrusive as naming Members or their staffs as parties to a suit, id. The Architect of the Capitol, J. George Stewart, with the approval of the House Office Building Commission, selected the firm of Harbeson, Hough, Livingston & Larson of Philadelphia to design a stripped-down classical building in architectural harmony with other Capitol Hill structures. Only after failing to obtain the records through investigative means within Rep. Jefferson's ability to control did the government turn to a search warrant, which minimizes Rep. Jefferson's role-and his Fifth Amendment right. Gravel makes unmistakably clear that a Member-not just a staffer-is subject to criminal liability and process, see, e.g., Gravel, 408 U.S. at 626, 92 S.Ct. WebHouse Office Buildings (Cannon, Ford, Longworth, Rayburn) Open to the public Monday The Speech or Debate Clause protects against the compelled disclosure of privileged documents to agents of the Executive, but not the disclosure of non-privileged materials. 3090 (quoting Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635, 72 S.Ct. We declared that [d]ocumentary evidence can certainly be as revealing as oral communications, providing clues as to what Congress is doing, or might be about to do, id. Based on the investigation, the affiant concluded that there was probable cause to believe that Congressman Jefferson, acting with other targets of the investigation, had sought and in some cases already accepted financial backing and or concealed payments of cash or equity interests in business ventures located in the United States, Nigeria, and Ghana in exchange for his undertaking official acts as a Congressman while promoting the business interests of himself and the targets. Although Brown & Williamson involved civil litigation and the documents being sought were legislative in nature, the court's discussion of the Speech or Debate Clause was more profound and repeatedly referred to the functioning of the Clause in criminal proceedings. Additional useful numbers are listed below: Office of Congressional Accessibility Services: 202-224-4048 (voice) or 202-224-4049 (TTY)Federal Relay Service: 800-877-8339 (voice/TTY)Washington, DC, Relay Service: 202-855-1000 (voice) 202-855-1234 (TTY), U.S. House of Representatives Receiving certain United States Capitol Police Messages through Alert DC For months, the government repeatedly tried and failed-due in part to Rep. Jefferson's invocation of his Fifth Amendment right-to obtain records in his congressional office via a series of subpoena duces tecum. at 665-66, thereby potentially depriving the Executive Branch of records bearing on criminality, it is a suggestion I categorically reject. 749, 15 L.Ed.2d 681 (1966). at 415 (quoting Eastland v. U.S. Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 502, 95 S.Ct. 201 (bribery of public official), 18 U.S.C. Maj. Op. With respect, I believe they vastly over-read Brown & Williamson. Indeed, this unique moment in our nation's history is largely of the Representative's own making. 1310 LHOB (House Administration Committee) Unlike the majority, however, I believe that neither the Supreme Court nor Brown & Williamson holds that the Clause precludes Executive Branch execution of a search warrant.