Excerpt from May 30, 2006 Interview with Brian Unger on MSNBC,s "Countdown" [FBI Search of U.S. Rep. William Jefferson's Office]

UNGER: Any irony here to the fact that many Republicans in the House seem to be just fine with the warrantless wiretapping of average citizens, and yet when it comes to the warranted search of a congressman`s office, not so much?

FRANK: Oh, I would say there is more irony here than in the collected works of George Bernard Shaw.

Here you have a Republican Congress which has been enthusiastic about the disregard of any kind of reasonable strength on law enforcement for almost everybody in the country, and now they overreact when it`s a member of Congress.

To put it very tersely, they have generally, the Republicans in particular, approved of warrantless intrusions into the privacy of average citizens. That is, they`ve said it`s OK to go in and get into what people read in the libraries or what they`ve said on the phone without a warrant.

Here, a warrant was issued. So we ought to be very clear, this is not a unilateral executive decision to do it. A judge issued a warrant. And I must say, having seen the evidence, I don`t know what the ultimate answer is, guilt or innocence, and that`s to be decided later, if, in fact, there`s a trial. And there hasn`t even been an indictment.

But it does seem to me that based on what we saw, there was sufficient basis for a warrant. This was not an imprudently granted warrant. And the notion that we would object when a search is conducted of one of our offices pursuant to a warrant, when people don`t object when there are searches without warrants of average citizens, yes, that`s pretty ironic…

UNGER: Do you think that some of your colleagues might actually feel that legal protections, or their legal protections are superior to those of the average citizen?

FRANK: Apparently, and I`m disappointed by that. Look, there is a phrase in the Constitution that says for what we say in speech or debate, we shouldn`t be made to answer elsewhere. That frankly comes from really Queen Elizabeth I and King James I. They interfered with parliament when it was first starting.

I understand that. What that means is, I can get up on the floor of the House, actually, under the rules of the House, I can get up on the floor of the House and say bad things about anybody in America, even if they`re not true, and not be held accountable. But I can`t even tell the truth about one of my colleagues.

But, yes, I do think it`s right that we shouldn`t be subjected to libel laws and slander laws. There ought to be free debate. But to extend that, that`s what they`re saying, that the phrase that says you shouldn`t have to answer anywhere else, i.e., in court, for anything you say in a speech or debate, that somehow gives us special legal protections for searching our offices doesn`t make any sense to me. It`s the speech and debate clause. And I got to tell you, my office has never made a speech.

UNGER: The -- Congressman, the drama`s been ratcheted up a bit too. Why do you think the president has stepped into this mess, putting himself at direct odds with his own attorney general?

FRANK: Of course, he`s in serious difficulty with his congressional party. He has had a very good five years from the Republican Congress, indeed, and this is part of the irony of what we were talking about. The Republicans in Congress during the past five years, because of their ideological affinity and their partisanship, have done virtually no oversight. And that`s really unprecedented in America, even in the past.

Republicans looked at Republican presidents. Democratic Congresses looked at Democratic presidents. This group has done no oversight. And that seemed to work for them politically. Recently, they`ve gotten into political trouble. And there are Republicans angry at the president over immigration, they`re angry over some other issues.

And I think the president feared that he was about to lose control, or even a significant amount of influence with the Republican Party in Congress…Remember, the president`s got a serious problem trying to deal with immigration. An immigration bill went through the Senate, in which a majority of the Republican senators voted no. George Bush feels he has to do something concrete about immigration. As of now, he`s got a Republican Party in the House that`s overwhelmingly against what he says he wants to do.

I think, frankly, he was afraid of further exacerbating that, and looking impotent for a couple years. So he threw the FBI over the side.

UNGER: Well, what is going to happen in 45 days` time? There is a freeze on this evidence at the moment. But what is going to happen? Will all be forgiven or forgotten?...

FRANK: I would hope not. Now, let me say, look, there are things in my office that constituents have written that ought to be kept private, and it is certainly true that that`s the case. But, you know, that`s true of every citizen. If you are a citizen, and a warrant is issued by a judge, as I said, in this case, the warrant seemed to me to be prudently issued, and the law enforcement people search your papers, yes, there are things that they`re going to see that shouldn`t be revealed, and if they ever reveal any of them, they should be punished.

So the normal rules should apply. But we shouldn`t have any special rules. I would hope, at the end of the 45 days, the president would decide to treat any member of Congress like any other citizen in this regard.

Excerpt of May 25, 2006 Speech on House Floor by Congressman Frank
"I disagree with the bipartisan House leadership criticism of the FBI,s search of a Member,s office. I know nothing specifically about the case, except that the uncontroverted public evidence did seem to justify the issuance of a warrant.

"What we now have is a Congressional leadership, the Republican part of which has said it is okay for law enforcement to engage in warrantless searches of the average citizen, now objecting when a search, pursuant to a validly issued warrant, is conducted of a Member of Congress…

"I think in particular for the leadership of this House, which has stood idly by while this administration has ignored the rights of citizens, to then say we have special rights as Members of Congress is wholly inappropriate."