[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 23, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H557-H560]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN THE DIGITAL ERA ACT

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
the bill (H.R. 546) to regulate monitoring of electronic communications 
between an incarcerated person in a Bureau of Prisons facility and that 
person's attorney or other legal representative, and for other 
purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 546

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

[[Page H558]]

  


     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Effective Assistance of 
     Counsel in the Digital Era Act''.

     SEC. 2. ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN AN INCARCERATED 
                   PERSON AND THE PERSON'S ATTORNEY.

       (a) Prohibition on Monitoring.--Not later than 180 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney 
     General shall create a program or system, or modify any 
     program or system that exists on the date of enactment of 
     this Act, through which an incarcerated person sends or 
     receives an electronic communication, to exclude from 
     monitoring the contents of any privileged electronic 
     communication. In the case that the Attorney General creates 
     a program or system in accordance with this subsection, the 
     Attorney General shall, upon implementing such system, 
     discontinue using any program or system that exists on the 
     date of enactment of this Act through which an incarcerated 
     person sends or receives a privileged electronic 
     communication, except that any program or system that exists 
     on such date may continue to be used for any other electronic 
     communication.
       (b) Retention of Contents.--A program or system or a 
     modification to a program or system under subsection (a) may 
     allow for retention by the Bureau of Prisons of, and access 
     by an incarcerated person to, the contents of electronic 
     communications, including the contents of privileged 
     electronic communications, of the person until the date on 
     which the person is released from prison.
       (c) Attorney-Client Privilege.--Attorney-client privilege, 
     and the protections and limitations associated with such 
     privilege (including the crime fraud exception), applies to 
     electronic communications sent or received through the 
     program or system established or modified under subsection 
     (a).
       (d) Accessing Retained Contents.--Contents retained under 
     subsection (b) may only be accessed by a person other than 
     the incarcerated person for whom such contents are retained 
     under the following circumstances:
       (1) Attorney general.--The Attorney General may only access 
     retained contents if necessary for the purpose of creating 
     and maintaining the program or system, or any modification to 
     the program or system, through which an incarcerated person 
     sends or receives electronic communications. The Attorney 
     General may not review retained contents that are accessed 
     pursuant to this paragraph.
       (2) Investigative and law enforcement officers.--
       (A) Warrant.--
       (i) In general.--Retained contents may only be accessed by 
     an investigative or law enforcement officer pursuant to a 
     warrant issued by a court pursuant to the procedures 
     described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
       (ii) Approval.--No application for a warrant may be made to 
     a court without the express approval of a United States 
     Attorney or an Assistant Attorney General.
       (B) Privileged information.--
       (i) Review.--Before retained contents may be accessed 
     pursuant to a warrant obtained under subparagraph (A), such 
     contents shall be reviewed by a United States Attorney to 
     ensure that privileged electronic communications are not 
     accessible.
       (ii) Barring participation.--A United States Attorney who 
     reviews retained contents pursuant to clause (i) shall be 
     barred from--

       (I) participating in a legal proceeding in which an 
     individual who sent or received an electronic communication 
     from which such contents are retained under subsection (b) is 
     a defendant; or
       (II) sharing the retained contents with an attorney who is 
     participating in such a legal proceeding.

       (3) Motion to suppress.--In a case in which retained 
     contents have been accessed in violation of this subsection, 
     a court may suppress evidence obtained or derived from access 
     to such contents upon motion of the defendant.
       (e) Definitions.--In this Act--
       (1) the term ``agent of an attorney or legal 
     representative'' means any person employed by or contracting 
     with an attorney or legal representative, including law 
     clerks, interns, investigators, paraprofessionals, and 
     administrative staff;
       (2) the term ``contents'' has the meaning given such term 
     in 2510 of title 18, United States Code;
       (3) the term ``electronic communication'' has the meaning 
     given such term in section 2510 of title 18, United States 
     Code, and includes the Trust Fund Limited Inmate Computer 
     System;
       (4) the term ``monitoring'' means accessing the contents of 
     an electronic communication at any time after such 
     communication is sent;
       (5) the term ``incarcerated person'' means any individual 
     in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons or the United States 
     Marshals Service who has been charged with or convicted of an 
     offense against the United States, including such an 
     individual who is imprisoned in a State institution; and
       (6) the term ``privileged electronic communication'' 
     means--
       (A) any electronic communication between an incarcerated 
     person and a potential, current, or former attorney or legal 
     representative of such a person; and
       (B) any electronic communication between an incarcerated 
     person and the agent of an attorney or legal representative 
     described in subparagraph (A).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Bishop) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.


                             General Leave

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, the first thing I would like to do is thank our 
distinguished chair of the Democratic Caucus, Mr. Jeffries, for working 
with us and moving forward on this bill, along with the chairman of the 
full committee, Mr. Nadler.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 546, the Effective Assistance of Counsel in the 
Digital Era Act requires the Federal Bureau of Prisons to establish a 
system that ensures the confidentiality of all privileged electronic 
communications between incarcerated individuals and their attorneys or 
legal representatives.
  H.R. 546 is identical to bipartisan legislation sponsored by 
Representative Hakeem Jeffries last Congress. Last September, the House 
approved this bill by voice vote. However, the Senate failed to take up 
the measure prior to adjournment. As we move forward today, I hope that 
the House will approve this bill with broad support, again, so that the 
Senate will take swift action and President Biden can sign this much-
needed proposal into law.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 546 addresses important constitutional 
protections for criminal defendants, and all of these I support. The 
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides the right to 
counsel, to assist in the defense of those accused of criminal 
offenses. In order to represent their clients in an effective manner, 
defense attorneys must have the ability to communicate candidly with 
their clients.
  The attorney-client privilege, which keeps communications between 
individuals and their attorneys confidential, exists in part to foster 
open communications. This privilege is a fundamental component of the 
effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Constitution. Of 
course, this privilege does not protect communications between a client 
and an attorney made in furtherance of or in order to cover up a crime 
or fraud, also known as the crime-fraud exception. We understand that.
  Outside of any custody setting, defendants are less constrained in 
their ability to have candid conversations with their attorneys. 
Generally, out-of-custody defendants can go to their attorneys' 
offices, speak with them freely on the phone, or send written or 
electronic correspondence without fear of interference or monitoring. 
To an extent, in-custody defendants also have these protections.
  For example, in the Federal system, Bureau of Prisons' regulations 
ensure that inmates can meet with their attorneys without auditory 
supervision. Current regulations also allow confidential phone calls 
and letters between inmates and their attorneys. But these same 
protections do not apply to email communications for the nearly 152,000 
individuals currently in Federal custody, including those in pretrial 
detention who have not been convicted of any crime.
  I know that my colleagues can see that that is definitively a denial 
of the civil rights, civil liberties, and the criminal justice rights 
that these individuals should have access to.
  H.R. 546 would ensure that all communications between attorneys and 
their clients remain confidential, including email.
  Madam Speaker, over a decade ago, the Federal Bureau of Prisons 
recognized the growing importance of email, which is important in 
providing efficient and swift communications between inmates and 
individuals on the outside.
  Since 2009, Bureau of Prisons' inmates have been able to access 
emails

[[Page H559]]

through a system known as TRULINCS. However, TRULINCS requires inmates 
and their contacts to consent to monitoring of all communications, even 
email exchanges between inmates and their attorneys. That, I think we 
all understand, is unfair.
  Madam Speaker, during the last decade, email has grown rapidly and is 
the primary means of communication between inmates and their attorneys. 
During the current pandemic, emails have become even more important 
given how difficult it is for attorneys to meet with their clients.
  Without appropriate safeguards, the Bureau of Prisons risks severely 
hindering the effective representation of inmates by limiting attorney-
client privilege for electronic communications. Therefore, H.R. 546 
would require the Bureau to implement an adequate system to ensure that 
these attorney-client communications remain confidential--again, a 
constitutional provision or principle of the right to counsel.
  H.R. 546 also includes additional protections, including the 
requirement of the contents of electronic communications be destroyed 
when an inmate is released from prison, as well as authorizing the 
suppression of evidence obtained or derived from access to information 
that is in violation of the provisions set forth in the bill.
  Madam Speaker, this is an important bill. Its time is now. I commend 
our colleague, Representative Jeffries, for his effort and leadership 
in developing this bipartisan legislation. This proposal has already 
received broad support by the House during the last Congress, and now 
we must act swiftly to see it enacted into law, moving to the United 
States Senate, and seeing the United States Senate act quickly for it 
to be signed by President Joe Biden.
  Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join us in support of 
this bill today, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Judiciary, Committee, I rise 
in strong support of H.R. 546, the bipartisan ``Effective Assistance of 
Counsel in the Digital Era Act,'' reintroduced by Congressman Jeffries 
of New York, legislation that ensures that email communications between 
people in Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) custody and their legal teams 
are protected with the same privilege as legal visits, letters, and 
phone calls.
  This legislation was reported out of the Judiciary Committee 
unanimously in the 116th Congress and was passed in the House twice--
once as part of a COVID relief bill and later without objection on the 
House floor.
  The principles of justice, fairness, and due process upon which our 
legal system is built necessitate confidentiality between the accused 
and their defense counsel.
  Attorney client privilege is one of the oldest privileges for 
confidential communications and has been an important part of the 
American legal system for hundreds of years.
  This privilege is critical when clients are in custody, and the form 
of communication--whether it be in person, by letter, by telephone, or 
by email--should have no bearing on that protection.
  Currently, individuals held in BOP facilities are uniformly denied 
the ability to have privileged communications with their lawyers 
through TRULINCS, the only email system available to them.
  In order to use the BOP system, incarcerated individuals must sign a 
waiver acknowledging that their communications may be monitored.
  Without signing the waiver, they cannot use the email system, cutting 
off any opportunity to communicate electronically.
  The need for access to privileged email is long overdue, and it is 
more critical than ever today.
  As the COVID pandemic has raged across the country and spread through 
detention facilities, BOP has restricted in-person visits, and 
unmonitored calls and legal mail are more difficult to use.
  But incarcerated clients' need to have access to their lawyers is 
undiminished, and in many instances is heightened by the delays and 
fears brought on by the pandemic.
  Email is the safest and most cost-effective means of communicating.
  The Effective Assistance of Counsel in the Digital Era Act remedies 
many of these concerns by striking the right balance between the 
government's limited interest in accessing certain email communications 
with a warrant and the need to properly protect communications subject 
to the attorney-client privilege.
  This legislation will only require the Department of Justice to 
change procedures concerning attorney-client communications and still 
maintains the ability for United States Attorneys to access other 
emails.
  Privileged communication is the cornerstone of attorney-client 
relationships and inseparable from the due process rights on which the 
U.S. legal system is founded.
  It is past time for BOP to bring its policies into the 21st century 
and ensure that electronic communications between people in custody and 
their legal teams are protected.
  I urge all Members to join me in voting for H.R. 546, the ``Effective 
Assistance of Counsel in the Digital Era Act.''
  Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 546, the Effective 
Assistance of Counsel in the Digital Era Act.
  This bill will modernize our criminal justice system by extending 
attorney-client privilege to electronic communication sent or received 
through the Bureau of Prisons' email system. This will ensure that 
incarcerated individuals can communicate with their attorneys 
efficiently and privately, as it should be.
  Under the legislation, the Bureau of Prisons will be prohibited from 
monitoring privileged email communications between incarcerated 
individuals and that individual's attorney.
  The attorney-client privilege is a vital component of our legal 
system that ensures a criminal defendant has an effective advocate in 
the courtroom. Emails between incarcerated individuals and their 
attorneys should fall under the attorney-client protections, but 
currently, that is not the case.
  This bill will protect the rights of incarcerated men and women to 
speak openly and honestly with their attorneys via email, without fear 
that the prosecution is monitoring those communications. Other methods 
of communication, such as in-person meetings and letters, can be 
particularly burdensome and time-consuming. Even if an attorney is near 
the incarcerated client, it can take hours to travel to a detention 
facility and visit with the client.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 546 requires the Attorney General to ensure that 
BOP's email system excludes the contents of electronic communications 
between an incarcerated person and his or her attorney from the current 
email monitoring process.
  The bill stipulates that the protections and limitations associated 
with the attorney-client privilege, including the crime-fraud 
exception, apply to electronic communications sent or received through 
the BOP email system. The BOP will be allowed to retain electronic 
communications until the incarcerated person is released, but the bill 
specifies that the contents may only be accessed under very limited 
circumstances.
  Finally, H.R. 546 allows a court to suppress evidence obtained or 
derived from access to the retained emails if the emails were accessed 
in violation of the act.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 
546, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), the sponsor and 
author of this bill, the chairman of the Democratic Caucus.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. JEFFRIES. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman, 
my good friend from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), for yielding and for her 
tremendous leadership on so many different criminal justice issues, 
including with respect to this particular piece of legislation. I thank 
the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop) for his 
support as well.
  I rise to support H.R. 546, the Effective Assistance of Counsel in 
the Digital Era Act, a critical bipartisan bill to protect the 
constitutional right to effective representation. This legislation 
passed the House last Congress, and I urge my colleagues to pass it 
once again today.
  The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution provides that in all criminal 
prosecutions, the accused shall have the assistance of counsel for his 
or her defense. An attorney must be fully informed about the facts of 
the case in order to effectively represent a client

[[Page H560]]

and provide the best possible legal advice and guidance. That is why 
confidential communication between attorneys and their clients is so 
critical and why the attorney-client privilege must be protected.
  In Lanza v. New York, the Supreme Court stated that even in a jail, 
or perhaps especially there, the relationships which the law has 
endowed with particularized confidentiality must continue to receive 
unceasing protection.
  There are nearly 124,000 individuals currently in BOP custody, many 
of whom are in pretrial detention and have not been convicted of a 
crime. In our system, defendants, American citizens, are innocent until 
proven guilty. Like any person involved in a criminal proceeding, these 
individuals who are incarcerated must be able to confidentially 
communicate with their attorneys.
  The bipartisan Effective Assistance of Counsel in the Digital Era Act 
would enable incarcerated individuals to communicate with their legal 
representatives privately, safely, and efficiently by prohibiting the 
Bureau of Prisons from monitoring privileged electronic communications.
  While BOP regulations do protect the confidentiality of in-person 
attorney visits, phone calls, and traditional mail, no such protections 
exist in the context of email communications sent through the BOP's 
electronic mail system. This system, known as TRULINCS, has become the 
easiest, fastest, and most efficient method of communication available 
to incarcerated individuals and their attorneys.
  Let's consider the alternatives. Even a brief client visit can take 
hours when you factor in travel and wait times. Confidential phone 
calls are perhaps useful, but they are subject to time limitations and 
can be difficult to schedule even for urgent legal matters. Postal mail 
must first be opened and inspected by staff for physical contraband, 
which can significantly extend the time it takes for the communication 
to reach an incarcerated individual.
  These delays should be unnecessary in a prison system that permits 
electronic communications and would be available if the attorney-client 
privilege was consistently applied.
  To address this serious problem, H.R. 546 would require the Attorney 
General to ensure that the BOP email system excludes from monitoring 
the contents of electronic communications between an incarcerated 
person and their attorney.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Jeffries) an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. The BOP will be permitted to retain the contents of 
these messages until the incarcerated person is released, but they 
would be accessible only under limited circumstances.
  The bill is supported by a wide variety of groups, including the 
American Bar Association, ACLU, Americans for Prosperity, Dream Corps, 
Due Process Institute, National Action Network, Prison Fellowship, 
Right on Crime, Faith and Freedom Coalition, FAMM, Federal public and 
community defenders organizations, and so many others.
  I want to thank all the sponsors of this bill, most particularly 
Representatives Van Taylor, Jerry Nadler, Tom McClintock, Don Bacon, 
Nancy Mace, and Sheila Jackson Lee, as well as Dan Crenshaw and Dusty 
Johnson. This has truly been a bipartisan journey.
  Our criminal justice system depends on the attorney-client privilege 
to ensure effective representation. I urge my colleagues to vote 
``yes'' on H.R. 546.
  Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I have no further 
speakers, and I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I wanted to say my compliments to the gentleman from New York in 
pursuit of this bill and the things he spoke to about the presumption 
of innocence and the right to counsel, among those sacred core rights 
that our Constitution guarantees to every individual in this country. 
This important bipartisan bill is preservative of that.
  That is what we do in this Chamber. That is what this Congress should 
always do. So my compliments to the gentleman from New York and the 
cosponsors on this piece of legislation. I encourage my fellow Members 
to support it.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Let me thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop) for his 
collegial response and his very important remarks on collaboration for 
important legislation like this.
  Let me also thank the distinguished gentleman from New York for 
finding an Achilles' heel that would really and continues to undermine 
the true sense of attorney-client privilege and to respect that 
privilege, whether you are in custody or not, and also recognizes the 
increasing utilization of the digital world to file briefs, to make 
arguments, and, of course, to find that divide between those in-custody 
inmates incarcerated and those that are not in custody. We are now 
moving to extensive virtual court proceedings.
  As we well know, individuals in custody are making a number of 
efforts to prove their innocence. They are appealing. They are seeking 
new trials. They, too, have rights that should be respected under both 
the Criminal Code and the Constitution.
  So, again, I thank the gentleman for his thoughtfulness and all the 
bipartisan cosponsors that he has.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 546 would ensure that the attorney-client 
privilege, again, is safeguarded in all communications between criminal 
defendants and their attorneys. This bipartisan legislation addresses 
an issue that is essential to the fair administration of the criminal 
justice system.
  During this ongoing pandemic, this measure has become even more 
urgent when there is even more reliance on electronic communications 
between attorneys and incarcerated individuals.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
bipartisan legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 546.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mrs. GREENE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this motion 
will be postponed.

                          ____________________