[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 139 (Tuesday, October 16, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H6813-H6814]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




MAKING PERMANENT AUTHORITY TO REDACT FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS OF 
                JUDICIAL EMPLOYEES AND JUDICIAL OFFICERS

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
the bill (H.R. 2336) to make permanent the authority to redact 
financial disclosure statements of judicial employees and judicial 
officers.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2336

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

     SECTION 1. REPEAL OF SUNSET PROVISION.

       Section 105(b)(3)(E) of the Ethics in Government Act of 
     1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) is repealed.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).


                             General Leave

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2336, the bill 
under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2336 and urge the House 
to adopt the measure. This bill will make permanent the authority of 
the U.S. Judicial Conference to redact financial disclosure statements 
of judicial employees and judicial officers.
  Under the Ethics in Government Act, judges and other high-level 
judicial branch officials must file annual financial disclosure 
reports. However, due to the nature of the judicial function and the 
increased security risk it entails, section 7 of the Identity Theft and 
Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998 allows the Judicial Conference to 
redact statutorily required information in a financial disclosure 
report where the release of the information could endanger the filer or 
his or her family. This provision will sunset on December 31, 2001, in 
the absence of further legislative action.
  The Judicial Conference Committee on Financial Disclosure recently 
submitted a report on section 7. The committee monitors the release of 
financial disclosure reports to ensure compliance with the statute, 
reviews redaction requests, and approves or disapproves any request for 
a redaction of statutorily mandated information where the release of 
the information could endanger a filer.
  In the year 2000, the committee noted, first, 13 financial disclosure 
reports were wholly redacted because the

[[Page H6814]]

judge was under a specific and active security threat and, second, only 
140 judges' reports were partially redacted due to specific or general 
threats.
  The purpose of the annual disclosure reports required by the Ethics 
in Government Act is to increase public confidence in government 
officials and better enable the public to judge the performance of 
those officials. However, Federal judges should be allowed to redact 
certain information from financial disclosures when they or a family 
member is threatened. Importantly, this practice has never interfered 
with the release of critical information to the public.
  H.R. 2336 will eliminate the sunset in section 7 and permit the 
Judicial Conference to permanently redact information in financial 
disclosure reports where that information could endanger the filer or 
his or her family. This is a good bill. It enjoys bipartisan support. 
There is no known opposition. I encourage the House to support the 
measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleague, the chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, in supporting H.R. 2336. This bill was 
introduced by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Berman). It protects judges against 
certain security threats. The September 11 tragedy only heightens the 
security concerns that make this legislation necessary. The Committee 
on the Judiciary reported H.R. 2336 favorably by voice vote on October 
3, and I am not aware of any controversy regarding the bill.
  H.R. 2336 permanently extends the ability of Federal judges to 
request redaction from their financial disclosure reports. The current 
redaction authority sunsets at the end of this year. Thus, it is 
imperative that we act quickly to get this bill to the Senate where we 
hope it passes before the end of the year. The redaction authority for 
judges is appropriately limited and thus does not raise concerns about 
undue restrictions on public access to financial disclosure reports. 
The judge's report may be redacted if the Judicial Conference and U.S. 
Marshals Service find that revealing personal and sensitive information 
could endanger that judge. Furthermore, the report can only be redacted 
to the extent necessary to protect the judge and only so long as a 
danger exists.

                              {time}  1615

  The redaction authority has not been abused to date. Of all of the 
judges filing reports in the year 2000, only 6 percent had their 
reports redacted, either wholly or even partially. Typically, the 
information redacted is limited to such things as the spouse's place of 
work, the location of a judge's second home, or the name of a law 
school at which a judge may teach part-time.
  The law requires the Judicial Conference, in concert with the 
Department of Justice, to file an annual report detailing the number 
and circumstances of redactions. This statutory reporting requirement 
enables Congress to monitor any abuse of the redaction authority.
  In short, I think the enactment of H.R. 2336 is necessary to protect 
the security of our Nation's judges, and I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this non-controversial 
legislation, H.R. 2336, is aimed at protecting judges and judicial 
employees. H.R. 2236 amends the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 by 
repealing the sunset provision of authorized redaction of financial 
disclosure reports filed by certain judicial employees and officers.
  The purpose of these financial disclosure reports required by the 
Ethics in Government Act of 1978 is to increase public confidence in 
government officials and better enable our public to assess the 
progress and effectiveness of their public officials. However, section 
7 of this Act which allows redaction where such disclosure could 
endanger the filer or his/her family is set to sunset on December 31, 
2001.
  In 2000, the Judicial Conference Committee on Financial Disclosure 
submitted a report, noting that numerous financial disclosure reports 
had been redacted because the Judge was under a specific, active 
security threat, and that 140 reports were partially redacted based on 
threats and various security risks. These threats may be heightened in 
light of the recent threats to our national security.
  This legislation appropriately repeals this sunset and makes 
permanent the authority to redact such financial disclosure statements 
of judicial employees or judicial officers.
  As a former associate municipal court judge, I understand that the 
need for such legislation is great. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the 
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2336.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________