House Votes to Pull Jefferson From Post on Key Committee

The House voted Friday to strip Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) of a powerful committee assignment, while an effort by the beleaguered Democrat to fight a search of his Capitol Hill office ran into a skeptical federal judge.

The voice vote -- without debate or dissent -- to expel Jefferson from the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee appears to be the first time the House has taken such a step against a member who has not been charged with a crime.

The vote against Jefferson, who is the target of a federal bribery investigation, was infused with issues of race, election-year politics and Justice Department investigations that have snagged members of both parties.

The action followed a decision by the House Democratic Caucus on Thursday night to endorse a proposal by its leader, Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, to remove Jefferson from the committee.

Pelosi said the move demonstrates that Democrats are serious about ethical issues. Democrats hope to make corruption in the Republican-controlled Congress a major theme in their effort to win the House and Senate in November.

The Congressional Black Caucus said Jefferson was being unfairly punished without even being charged with a crime. Some in the 43-member caucus have said Jefferson was singled out because he was black.

Through a spokeswoman, Jefferson declined to comment after the floor vote. But Thursday night he accused Pelosi of using him to fuel her political ambitions.

“Unfortunately, Minority Leader Pelosi wants so badly to win leadership in the House that she has persuaded the caucus to sacrifice my constituents -- who, after Katrina, need my leadership on my committee more than ever,” he said.

Federal officials are investigating whether the eight-term congressman used his office to promote business ventures in Africa in which he and his relatives had an interest.

On Friday, lawyers for Jefferson and the House leadership went to federal court to challenge an FBI search of his Capitol Hill office on May 20-21, saying it violated the doctrine of separation of powers and the “speech and debate” clause of the Constitution. The constitutional provision protects members of Congress from lawsuits and forced testimony stemming from their official legislative acts.

The search of Jefferson’s office, which involved a dozen FBI agents, was unprecedented.

A sworn affidavit unsealed as part of the raid said that in August the FBI had videotaped Jefferson accepting $100,000 from an undercover government informant. The money was ostensibly intended as a payment to a Nigerian businessman.

Later, $90,000 was found wrapped in foil in the freezer of his Capitol Hill home, the FBI said.

Jefferson’s lawyers have demanded that the material seized during the May search -- including two boxes of documents and a copy of his computer hard drive -- be returned to the congressman. House leaders have endorsed the position.

But U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan, who signed off on the search warrant in May, indicated at the hearing Friday that he thought it was legal.

“The speech-or-debate clause is not a hide-and-conceal clause,” the judge said. Hogan said that he would issue a ruling later but that he was “not sanguine about the arguments advanced” on behalf of Jefferson.

At the hearing, the congressman’s lawyers said there were circumstances under which searches of congressional offices were allowed. But they said that the requisite strict procedures were not followed.

Robert Trout, a lawyer for Jefferson, said the search was illegal because the FBI had not given Jefferson the opportunity to be present and to go through his records to separate those that involved his official work as a lawmaker.

But Hogan said that ordinary citizens do not enjoy that right, and that such a rule would probably frustrate legitimate lawenforcement efforts.

Hogan asked whether a congressman should have the right to review documents in his office when there was evidence of illegal activity there, such as ledgers reflecting cocaine activity. Trout said a congressman should have that right.

In a later exchange, Hogan told Trout, “I don’t see how you could execute search warrants under your theory at all.”

Trout argued that there were other methods that federal agents could use to obtain documents from members of Congress, such as through the issuance of a subpoena. But under questioning from Hogan, he conceded that Jefferson had not turned over any documents that investigators had been seeking under a subpoena issued in August.

The Justice Department said Jefferson was attempting to put himself above the law.

“The giving and taking of bribes is not protected by the speech-or-debate clause,” Roy McLeese III, the appellate chief of the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, told the judge.

Hogan questioned McLeese about whether the Constitution required that investigators use other means to obtain documents from members of Congress before searching their offices.

McLeese indicated that the law did not require any special treatment but that the department was following an informal policy of using searches as a last resort.

The search has roiled relations between the White House and Congress. Top Justice Department officials hinted at first that they might resign if forced to return the documents.

President Bush declared a 45-day cooling-off period, ordering the documents sealed while the two sides negotiated a truce. That period ends July 9.

The congressional leadership is concerned that the search may set a precedent for use against other members of Congress -- many of them Republican -- who are currently under investigation by the Justice Department in connection with the scandal involving former lobbyist Jack Abramoff and other activities.