Essentially, the procedures called for the FBI agents conducting the search to have no substantive role in the investigation and upon reviewing and removing materials from Room 2113, not to reveal politically sensitive or non-responsive items inadvertently seen during the course of the search. Id. 1. 136, and (2) to identify information that may fall within the purview of the Speech or Debate Clause privilege, U.S. 1970, 56 L.Ed.2d 525 (1978), is misplaced. at 421. 2614.7 Nevertheless, my colleagues conclude that the holding in Brown & Williamson, see 62 F.3d at 418-21, establishes that the disclosure of legislative material during the execution of a search warrant, Maj. Op. Open 7:30a.m. 5:00 p.m. daily, including all weekends and holidays. His proposal would resurrect his Fifth Amendment right because presumably he would respond as he did to the subpoena duces tecum. More comprehensive informationincluding assistive listening devices, public TTY locations, tour details, service animals, family restrooms, and a shuttle to Capitol Visitor Centeris available from the Architect of the Capitol. Notwithstanding the search warrant sought only unprivileged records, Rep. Jefferson's congressional office, as the warrant itself manifests,5 also contained records, paper and electronic, of legislative acts to which the Clause's protection extends. 4. WebRayburn House Office Building Horseshoe drive off South Capitol Street or entrance on HVC-201 A&B Contact us. at 661. Materials determined to be privileged or not responsive would be returned without dissemination to the prosecution team. 06-3105. This gated outdoor garden has extended evening hours; staying open until 7 p.m. from April 1 to September 15 each year.Bartholdi Park FindLaw.com Free, trusted legal information for consumers and legal professionals, SuperLawyers.com Directory of U.S. attorneys with the exclusive Super Lawyers rating, Abogado.com The #1 Spanish-language legal website for consumers, LawInfo.com Nationwide attorney directory and legal consumer resources. at 81 (describing filtering procedures for paper records); id. Phone: (202) 225-4511. Committee on Oversight and Accountability. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 94 S.Ct. See Appellant's Br. 2018, 36 L.Ed.2d 912 (1973)), recognizing that the privilege is absolute once it attaches begs the question whether the Clause attaches to begin with.10 Significantly, in Brown & Williamson we expressly recognized that the Clause's testimonial privilege might be less stringently applied when inconsistent with a sovereign interest, such as the conduct of criminal proceedings. They will open 30 minutes prior to the session and will remain open until adjournment each day. Id. Still, the speech or debate privilege was designed to preserve legislative independence, not supremacy. United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501, 508, 92 S.Ct. 10. 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. 7. Senator Martha McSally (R-AZ), Congressman and Congressional Valley Fever Task Force Co-Chair David Schweikert (AZ-06), Congresswoman Karen Bass (CA-37), Congressman Greg Stanton (AZ-09), and U.S. Today, Congressman Kevin McCarthy, Co-Chairman of the Congressional Valley Fever Task Force, introduced H.R. The filter team would make similar determinations with respect to the data on the copied computer hard drives, following an initial electronic screening by the FBI's Computer Analysis and Response Team. 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. 371; Count 2, Conspiracy to Solicit Bribes by a Public Official, Deprive Citizens of Honest Services by Wire Fraud, id. Again in dicta, Brown & Williamson rejected the Third Circuit's holding in In re Grand Jury Investigation, 587 F.2d 589 (3d Cir.1978), that the Clause merely prohibits evidentiary use of records of legislative acts but not their disclosure, concluding instead that the interest in protecting the functioning of the legislature may permit the Congress to insist on the confidentiality of investigative files, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Williams, 62 F.3d 408, 420 (D.C.Cir.1995). WebHouse Office Buildings (Cannon, Ford, Longworth, Rayburn) Open to the public Monday 13. The historical record utterly devoid of Executive searches of congressional offices suggests the imposition of such a burden will be, at most, infrequent. Clearly a remedy in this case must show particular respect to the fact that the Speech or Debate Clause reinforces the separation of powers and protects legislative independence. Fields v. Office of Eddie Bernice Johnson, 459 F.3d 1, 8 (D.C.Cir.2006) (en banc) (collecting cases). The special procedures outlined in the warrant affidavit would not have avoided the violation of the Speech or Debate Clause because they denied the Congressman any opportunity to identify and assert the privilege with respect to legislative materials before their compelled disclosure to Executive agents. 390 CHOB (Cannon Caucus Room), Longworth Lobby Stakeout East Will Rogers Statue Area David Schweikert is serving his seventh term in the United States Congress. of Hon. If Executive Branch exposure alone violated the privilege, agents could not conduct a voluntary interview with a congressional staffer who wished to report criminal conduct by a Member or staffer, because of the possibility that the staffer would discuss legislative acts in describing the unprivileged, criminal conduct. Appellee's Br. Studio C The FBI agents seized and carried away two boxes of documents and copies of the hard drives and electronic data. 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. Committees Committee and Subcommittee Assignments. In addressing application of the exclusionary rule in the context of the Fourth Amendment, the Supreme Court pointed out in Leon that [p]articularly when law enforcement officers have acted in objective good faith [on a warrant issued by a neutral magistrate] or their transgressions have been minor, the possible benefit from exclusion, in terms of future deterrence, is limited, 468 U.S. at 907-08, 104 S.Ct. See infra pp. 1 (emphases added). As [t]he laws of this country allow no place or employment as a sanctuary for crime, Williamson v. United States, 207 U.S. 425, 439, 28 S.Ct. Because Gravel stresses the significance of criminal proceedings, rather than their target, and because his aide can invoke the Clause only if the Member can do so, the majority is wrong in maintaining that Gravel's language as construed in Brown & Williamson is limited to third-party crime.11, Moreover, as the government points out, to conclude that the Clause's shield protects against any Executive Branch exposure to records of legislative acts would jeopardize law enforcement tools that have never been considered problematic. Appellee's Br. Const., art. The affiant asserted that the Executive had exhausted all other reasonable methods to obtain these records in a timely manner. H-137 Hallway Also in the third floor basement is a shooting range run by the U.S. Capitol Police and a basketball court. at 1. See Appellant's Br. First St., and C St., S.W. The Rayburn House Office Building, completed in early 1965, is the third of three office buildings constructed for the United States House of Representatives. The design of the building is a modified H plan with four stories above ground, two basements, and three levels of underground garage space. 1. 1 or any other pertinent privilege, id. The Rayburn Room is a large reception room at the United States Capitol where members of Congress can meet with press or constituents. 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. Materials determined by the filter team to be potentially privileged would, absent the Congressman's consent to Executive use of a potentially privileged document, be submitted to the district court for review, with a log and copy of such documents provided to the Congressman's attorney within 20 business days of the search. at 660. at 179. 2. Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge ROGERS. 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. The Clause provides that for any Speech or Debate in either House [t]he Senators and Representatives shall not be questioned in any other Place. U.S. Const. The question on appeal is whether the procedures under which the search was conducted were sufficiently protective of the legislative privilege created by the Speech or Debate Clause, Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution. The warrant was lawfully issued because it does not seek evidence of [a] legislative act generally done in Congress in relation to the business before it, United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501, 512, 92 S.Ct. See In re Search of Law Office, 341 F.3d at 414 & n. 49 (holding that district court must find at the very least, a substantial showing of irreparable harm in order to suppress seized evidence under Rule 41(e), citing G.M. 278 (1908) (quoting King v. Willkes, 2 Wils. These services include adaptive tours of the Capitol building, wheelchair loans, and interpreting services for individuals who are deaf or hard 07-0209 (E.D. Construction activities and surveyor at work. The majority, in barring Executive Branch execution of a search warrant-and, by extension, other common investigatory tools-based on mere exposure to privileged records, checks the Judicial Branch as well. 657-58. at 15, it does not deny that compelled review by the Executive occurred, nor that it occurred in a location where legislative materials were inevitably to be found, nor that some impairment of legislative deliberations occurred. For the reasons stated, absent any claim of disruption of the congressional office by reason of lack of original versions, it is unnecessary to order the return of non-privileged materials as a further remedy for the violation of the Clause. [1] Congressional leaders inserted a gymnasium into the building plans, a fact that was not publicly known at the time of construction. at 13. By the time of the Constitutional Convention, the privilege embodied in the Speech or Debate Clause was recognized as an important protection of the independence and integrity of the legislature, United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169, 178, 86 S.Ct. 9. at 663. According to Brewster, a Member of Congress may be prosecuted under a criminal statute provided that the Government's case does not rely on legislative acts or the motivation for legislative acts. Id. There is no dispute that the issuance of the search warrant for Rep. Jefferson's congressional office does not violate the Clause. 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. Remand Order of July 28, 2007. Although in Gravel the Court held that the Clause embraces a testimonial privilege, id. WASHINGTON, DC Today, Co-Chairs of the Congressional Valley Fever Task Force David Schweikert (AZ-06) and Kevin McCarthy (CA-23) joined in celebrating Valley Fever Awareness Week in Arizona. 1425, 18 L.Ed.2d 577 (1967)); see also Johnson, 383 U.S. at 179, 86 S.Ct. Moreover, Rep. Jefferson's proposed method of warrant execution-first sealing his office and allowing him to separate privileged from non-privileged records-effectively eliminates the distinction between a search warrant and a subpoena. On July 10, 2006, the district court denied the Congressman's motion for return of the seized materials. WebIf you are looking for our District Office contact information, you can view our Offices page. Please try again. Most important, to construe the Speech or Debate Clause as providing an absolute privilege against a seizure of non-privileged materials essential to the Executive's enforcement of criminal statutes pursuant to Article II, Section 3 on no more than a generalized claim that the separation of powers demands no less would, as the Supreme Court has observed, albeit as to a qualified privilege, upset the constitutional balance of a workable government. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 707, 94 S.Ct. At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. In the meantime, the court enjoined the Executive from reviewing any of the seized documents pending further order of this court. HVC-210 (Speaker's Hearing Room) 2123 RHOB (Energy and Commerce Committee) Rather he contends legislative and executive interests can be accommodated without such notice, as urged, for example by the Deputy Counsel to the House of Representatives: We're not contemplating advance notice to the [M]ember to go into his office to search his documents before anyone shows up, but rather that [t]he Capitol [P]olice would seal the office so that nothing would go out of that office and then the search would take place with the [M]ember there. Tr. I disagree.6. These non-case agents' reviewed the records in Rep. Jefferson's office only to determine if they [were] responsive to the list of items in the warrant, thereafter deliver[in] the seized records to the Filter Teams. Brewster, 408 U.S. at 508 (speech or debate privilege was designed to preserve legislative independence, not supremacy) (emphasis added).12, In sum, I believe the Executive Branch's execution of a search warrant on a congressional office-with its unavoidable but minimal exposure to records of legislative acts-does not constitute question[ing] within the meaning of the Speech or Debate Clause. However, this court has. Concluding that execution of the warrant did not impermissibly interfere with Congressman Jefferson's legislative activities, In re Search of the Rayburn House Office Bldg. The search of Congressman Jefferson's office must have resulted in the disclosure of legislative materials to agents of the Executive. During significant planned or no-notice events, the Department may contact HSEMA with certain messages, such as for major road closures, police activity, and life-safety events. The Office of Congressional Accessibility Services (OCAS) provides a variety of services for individuals with disabilities. at 15-16, and that any violation of the privilege does not deprive the Executive of the right to retain all non-privileged materials within the scope of the search warrant. The Congressman does not dispute that congressional offices are subject to the operation of the Fourth Amendment and thus subject to a search pursuant to a search warrant issued by the federal district court. However, in Zurcher, the Supreme Court did not address whether a particular search was invalid because it was unconstitutional in its design and implementation; nor did it involve a privilege that absolutely shields records from non-voluntary disclosure. Abner J. Mikva at 18; Amicus Br. Having found probable cause to believe that Rep. Jefferson's congressional office contains property constituting evidence of the commission of bribery of a public official, wire fraud[,] bribery of a foreign official [and] conspiracy to commit these crimes and having issued a search warrant aimed solely at such evidence, see Warrant Aff. 2322 Rayburn House Office Building The Subcommittee on Innovation, Data, and Commerce of the Committee on Energy and Commerce held an open markup session on Tuesday, February 7, 2023, at 2:00 p.m. See Appellant's Br. Id. The FBI agents' execution of the warrant on Rep. Jefferson's congressional office did not require the latter to do anything and accordingly falls far short of the question[ing] the court in Brown & Williamson found was required of a Member in response to a civil subpoena. Steak n Shake is located adjacent to the Rayburn Cafeteria. 137-38. 3090, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974) (citing Speech or Debate Clause cases to illustrate judicial power to define scope of executive privilege); cf. In order to maximize accessibility, this site has been designed to conform with: House.gov includes code and content provided by third parties. Pedestrian tunnels also connect the Rayburn building to the Capitol and to the Longworth House Office Building. Longworth House Office Building - Main entrance, Independence and New Jersey Avenues. At the same time, the remedy must give effect not only to the separation of powers underlying the Speech or Debate Clause but also to the sovereign's interest under Article II, Section 3 in law enforcement. Rayburn has a five-acre footprint, and looming four stories over the Hill it is larger than the nearby Capitol building. Johnson v. United States, 228 U.S. 457, 458, 33 S.Ct. 2. The grandson of a cattle rancher and the son of a firefighter, Kevin grew up a working-class family and is committed to preserving and promoting the American dream for hardworking Americans. Decided: August 03, 2007 Before: GINSBURG, Chief Judge, and HENDERSON and ROGERS, Circuit Judges. Capitol - Public tours enter through the Capitol Visitor Center; Official House business enters on the south side of the Capitol; Official Senate business enters on the north side of the Capitol.. Answering a civil subpoena requires the individual subpoenaed to affirmatively act; he either produces the testimony/documents sought or challenges the subpoena's validity. 2531. Rep. Schweikert meets with Dr. Galgiani, Director of the University of Arizona Valley Fever Center for Excellence, and community leaders in Phoenix, Arizona. Opinion concurring in the judgment filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON. The email address cannot be subscribed. 749, 15 L.Ed.2d 681 (1966). The majority is incorrect in suggesting that I fail[] to distinguish between the lawfulness of searching a congressional office pursuant to a search warrant and the lawfulness of the manner in which the search is executed. Maj. Op. Web2229 Rayburn House Office Building. See Warrant Aff. The Executive does not argue otherwise; the search warrant sought only materials not protected by the Speech or Debate Clause. 749; see also Tenney, 341 U.S. at 372, 71 S.Ct. There would appear to be no reason why the Congressman's privilege under the Speech or Debate Clause cannot be asserted at the outset of a search in a manner that also protects the interests of the Executive in law enforcement. The district court rejected the Congressman's claim that he had a right to remove documents he deemed privileged before execution of the warrant, reasoning that although some privileged material was incidentally captured by the search and was subject to incidental review, the preconditions for a properly administered warrant that seeks only unprivileged material that falls outside the sphere of legitimate legislative activity are sufficient to protect against undue Executive intrusion. 2072 *formerly B-366* (House Radio-TV Gallery) The special procedures described in the warrant affidavit called for review by FBI agents and the several members of the Justice Department filter team before the Congressman would be afforded an opportunity to identify potentially privileged materials. At trial Rep. Jefferson may assert Speech or Debate Clause immunity to bar the use of records he claims are privileged. If you have any questions, feel free to email us. This court's jurisdiction of the Congressman's appeal rests on the collateral order doctrine. 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. (emphasis added). 2614, to the existence of criminal proceedings against persons other than Members of Congress at least suggest that the testimonial privilege might be less stringently applied when inconsistent with a sovereign interest. Brown & Williamson, 62 F.3d at 419-20. Thus, in the criminal context the Supreme Court has indicated that it is the Executive Branch's evidentiary use of legislative acts, rather than its exposure to that evidence, that violates the Clause. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Republicans 2321 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Phone: 202-225-6371 Fax: 202-226-0113 WebEventbrite - East-West Center in Washington presents The Launch of "Taiwan Matters For America/America Matters for Taiwan" - Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at Rayburn House Office Building, Room 2060 (Please go to Horseshoe Drive Entrance), Washington, DC. CVC-217 (South Congressional Meeting Room) See United States v. Dorcely, 454 F.3d 366, 375 (D.C.Cir.2006) (carefully considered language of the Supreme Court, even if technically dictum, generally must be treated as authoritative (quoting Sierra Club v. EPA, 322 F.3d 718, 724 (D.C.Cir.2003))). The Supreme Court has not spoken to the precise issue at hand. This markup took place in 2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building. Phone numbers for House and Senate offices, both voice and TTY, are available by calling the Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121 (voice) or 202-224-3091 (TTY). 378, 136 L.Ed.2d 1 (1996). 2237 RHOB (Judiciary Committee) In concluding that there is no reason to believe that the [nondisclosure rule] does not apply in the criminal as well as the civil context, Maj. Op. at 420. Phone: (202) 225-2915 U.S. Const. at 421 (quoting MINPECO, 844 F.2d at 859 (quoting Eastland v. U.S. Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 503, 95 S.Ct. at 420, and thereby potentially defeating the Clause's purpose to insulate Members of Congress from distractions that divert their time, energy, and attention from their legislative tasks, id. There, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that the First Amendment imposed a bar to third-party search warrants absent a prior opportunity by the press to litigate the state's entitlement to the material before it is turned over or seized. The indictment included charges of racketeering, solicitation of (and conspiracy to solicit) bribes, money laundering, wire fraud, and obstruction of justice.1 Trial is scheduled to begin with jury selection in January 2008. 1324 LHOB (Natural Resrouces Committee) 2531 (Clause's purpose [is not] to make Members of Congress super-citizens, immune from criminal responsibility); Gravel, 408 U.S. at 626, 92 S.Ct. Cannon House Office Building - Entrance on New Jersey Avenue, SE, south of the terrace at the intersection with Independence Avenue. I, 6, cl. Room No. WebWashington, DC Office. 139. 6. [T]he physical search of the Office [was] conducted by Special Agents [with] no substantive role in the investigation of Rep. Jefferson. Room No. On this reading of the Clause, Rep. Jefferson remains subject to the same criminal process that applies to his constituents. Congressman Jefferson argued in the district court that he has suffered irreparable harm with no adequate remedy available at law because the violation of his constitutional rights cannot be vindicated by an action at law or damages or any other traditional relief.7 On appeal, however, the Congressman makes no claim that the functioning of his office has been impaired by loss of access to the original versions of the seized documents; the Remand Order directed that he be given copies of all seized documents. Although the Congressman's further request is solely for the return of property, his Rule 41(g) motion is tied to a criminal prosecution in esse against the movant, DiBella, 369 U.S. at 132, 82 S.Ct. Task Force Co-chairs Leader McCarthy and Rep. Schweikert hold press conference to announce NIH trial studying the efficacy of Fluconazole in treating Valley Fever at Banner University Medical Center in Phoenix, Arizona on October 17, 2016. 310CHOB (Homeland Security Committee) The Congressman has suggested no other reason why return of such documents is required pursuant to Rule 41(g) and, in any event, it is doubtful that the court has jurisdiction to entertain such arguments following the return of the indictment against him while this appeal was pending. at 10. at 36. I, 6, cl. To the extent the Executive expresses concern about the burdens placed upon the district court and attendant delay during judicial review of seized materials, the Remand Order illustrates a streamlined approach by narrowing the number of materials the district court may be required to review. Noting that the purpose of the Speech or Debate Clause is to insure that the legislative function the Constitution allocates to Congress may be performed independently, without regard to the distractions of private civil litigation or the periods of criminal prosecution, id. at 419; see also MINPECO, S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 844 F.2d 856, 860 (D.C.Cir.1988). Gallery passes are required to enter the Senate galleries and may be obtained through your Senators office by visiting the Senate Appointment Desk after entering the building through security screening. 1494, 1501, 164 L.Ed.2d 195 (2006) (internal quotation omitted), and, as noted, the Supreme Court has made clear that the Clause does not purport to confer a general exemption upon Members of Congress from criminal process, Gravel, 408 U.S. at 626, 92 S.Ct. On May 24, 2006, Congressman Jefferson challenged the constitutionality of the search of his congressional office and moved for return of the seized property pursuant to Fed. of Hr'g, June 16, 2006, at 35; see Appellant's Br. 5. Congressman Jim Saxton was reportedly the source of the false alarm, after he mistook construction sounds in the garage for gunfire.[8]. 837, 51 L.Ed.2d 30 (1977), distinguished between the receipt of privileged information by an agent of the Executive and by the prosecution team in the context of a civil rights claim based on a Sixth Amendment violation, the nature of the considerations presented by a violation of the Speech or Debate Clause is different. This too should ameliorate concerns about deterrence. See In re Search of the Rayburn House Office Bldg. Brown & Williamson's non-disclosure rule, however, does not extend to criminal process. The question remains what the appropriate remedy is under Rule 41(g) for a violation of the Speech or Debate Clause. As Gravel noted, his aide's privilege derives from the Member's. As a result of the 2002 Amendments, Rule 41(e) now appears with minor stylistic changes as Rule 41(g). CONTACT: 2329 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington DC 20515-1302, COMMITTEE: Committee on Energy and Commerce Office Hours 9:00 AM6:00 PM, MondayFriday 118th Congress, 1st Session; Member Profile. Neither does the Congressman maintain that the Speech or Debate Clause protects unprivileged evidence of unprivileged criminal conduct. The Congressman makes clear in his brief that he is not suggesting advance notice is required by the Constitution before Executive agents arrive at his office. The Justice Department, therefore, could regain custody of the seized materials and resume review as of July 10, 2006. The Supreme Court has made clear that the two elements of the privilege-Speech or Debate and question[ing]-must be read broadly to effectuate its purposes. United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169, 180, 86 S.Ct. To receive these alerts while visiting Capitol Hill, visitors may sign up for Alert DC to receive USCP alerts provided to HSEMA. Hours: M-F 9:00am-6:00pm. 2531; see Fields, 459 F.3d at 9. Find event and ticket information. Yet, to the extent the majority reads Brown & Williamson to limit Gravel to process served on a congressional aide during a criminal investigation of a third party, that reading mischaracterizes both Brown & Williamson and Gravel. 137-38, the FBI agents who executed the search warrant shall continue to be barred from disclosing the contents of any privileged or politically sensitive and non-responsive items, id. 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. It appears that neither the Supreme Court nor any inferior court has addressed the question as I view it and the single holding from our court on which the majority almost exclusively relies to answer the question in the negative decides only the Clause's applicability to a civil subpoena obtained by private parties who sought certain files in the possession of a congressional subcommittee. In defining the protections afforded by the Clause, the Supreme Court has limited the scope to conduct that is an integral part of the due functioning of the legislative process. United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501, 513, 92 S.Ct. The filter team would determine: (1) whether any of the seized documents were not responsive to the search warrant, and return any such documents to the Congressman; and (2) whether any of the seized documents were subject to the Speech or Debate Clause privilege or other privilege.