Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

House Wants Guidelines Set for Wiretapping of Members

By Ben Pershing

House officials are hoping to restart dormant talks with the Justice Department on establishing guidelines for wiretapping and searching the offices of members of Congress, just days after the disclosure that federal investigators recorded the phone conversation of Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) sparked fresh controversy on the issue.

Negotiations between the executive and legislative branches began during the Bush administration, after the FBI raided the congressional office of then-Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.). House leaders of both parties were furious at the maneuver, which they contended -- and a federal appeals court agreed -- violated the protections members of Congress enjoy under the Constitution's "speech or debate" clause. Legal wrangling has also surrounded the federal prosecution of ex-Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.), whose phone conversations were recorded by investigators.

"Whether it's invading the office or wiretapping a conversation, it's important for us to have separation of powers and respect for individual liberties, while not harboring information that would be useful under the speech or debate clause," Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters today. "We made some progress in the previous administration, and now we have a new president and we hope we can get that resolved."

On Monday, House general counsel Irvin B. Nathan sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder saying, "The House leadership has urged me to resume that dialogue at the earliest opportunity with you and your staff in order to reach agreement on protocols that would deal both with, hopefully rare, searches and electronic surveillance involving members of Congress."

Nathan added, "We recognize that all legitimate law enforcement tools may be utilized against all citizens, and no one, including Members, can be immune from their legitimate use." But given that the Constitution provides at least some protection for lawmakers from having their official acts or work product used against them, Nathan suggested it would be best for the two sides to reach an understanding rather than having some future court decision decide the issue for them.

Nathan's letter, which was first reported by Roll Call, came barely a week after the Harman controversy burst into view. But one didn't actually lead to the other, Pelosi explained today. She said the renewed call for negotiations predated the Harman revelation, but "it became more interesting to you [the press] in light of that."

The goal of the talks, Pelosi emphasized, will be to "make sure that the speech or debate clause is honored, and also that the law of the land is obeyed." Harman herself has called the government's behavior in her case "an abuse of power."

It isn't clear if or when the talks will resume. "We have received the letter, and we're reviewing it," said a Justice Department spokeswoman.

By Ben Pershing  |  April 30, 2009; 5:23 PM ET
Categories:  Ethics and Rules , House  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Today on the Hill
Next: Today on the Hill

Comments

guidelines already exist, don't engage in play for pay on the open mics. Like Blagovich... well you know a governor is not above the law neither should a congressperson.

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | April 30, 2009 11:05 PM | Report abuse

From the article: Congress is concerned..."also that the law of the land is obeyed..." according to Nancy Pelosi. Right. And all the Constitutional rights we ordinary citizens once enjoyed are less important to Congress than covering their own butts. Hypocrites!

Posted by: meand2 | May 1, 2009 10:15 AM | Report abuse

If they limit wiretaps on Congress we expose ourselves to more rape from the powers we elected to protect us! If a Congressman{women}'s phone is not tapped, but she receives a call from a phone that is tapped or he{she}calls a number that is tapped,can they hide any evidence of wrongdoing?

Posted by: asclepious2 | May 1, 2009 5:57 PM | Report abuse

They never seem to get it, the "ruling" class. If it's not OK to wiretap them why is OK to wiretap us? If it's OK for them to have unlimited Healthcare and not call it "Socialism" why is it NOT OK for us to have unlimited Healthcare?

Posted by: Watcher1 | May 4, 2009 7:39 AM | Report abuse

There is NO good reason that Congressmen should have a different set of rules and laws than other Americans in this area. They already have plenty of power and privilege as it is.

Funny how easy it is to see the harm when something like this is done to YOU, Mr. Congressman, rather than just to us peasants.

NOBODY likes to have others listening in to their private conversations... and especially to have "monitors" listening in. Freedom of speech is seriously diminished, if speech is monitored by unseen government agents... or even if we are led to suspect that it might be.

What we say to one another, when we are truly free to speak, is NOT the same as what we say, what we MUST say, and MUST NOT say, when Big Brother is listening in. Even a Congressman can probably understand that.

Posted by: Observer44 | May 4, 2009 1:15 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company