[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 51 (Friday, March 23, 2007)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E623]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 JUDICIAL DISCLOSURE RESPONSIBILITY ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. SHEILA JACKSON-LEE

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, March 21, 2007

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 1130, 
the ``Judicial Disclosure Responsibility Act,'' because it extends 
until December 31, 2009, the authority conferred by the Congress on the 
Judicial Conference to redact personal and sensitive information from 
the published financial disclosure reports of judges and judiciary 
employees who have been threatened or otherwise have particular 
security risks.
  Mr. Speaker, as I stated, H.R. 1130 would temporarily extend the 
authority of the Judicial Conference to withhold from disclosure 
certain personal and sensitive information of judges and judicial 
employees. In addition, the bill expressly provides that concern for 
the safety of a judge's family as well as that of the judge is 
sufficient grounds to exercise the authority given. The bill, however, 
requires the Judicial Conference to provide detailed reports regarding 
such redactions to Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, the financial disclosure requirements were imposed by 
Congress in 1978 in response to the constitutional issues surrounding 
the Watergate crisis and the resignation of President Richard M. Nixon. 
The Ethics in Government Act was passed in 1978 and promotes ethics and 
openness in government by establishing rules of conduct for federal 
employees to reduce corruption and prevent the improper use of 
knowledge gained while employed by the government, and more broadly to 
prevent the appearance of impropriety.
  The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (``Act'') applies to all 
branches of government, including the federal judiciary. Persons 
covered by the Act are required to disclose personal and 
financial information each year, including the source and amount of 
income, other than that earned as employees of the United States 
government received during the preceding calendar year. They must also 
disclose the source, description, and value of gifts for which the 
aggregate value is more than a certain minimal amount received from any 
source other than a relative; the source and description of 
reimbursements; the identity and category of value of property 
interests; the identity and category value of liabilities owed to 
creditors other than certain immediate family members; and other 
financial information. Under the Act, these reports are made public.

  Among the types of sensitive personal information that might be 
disclosed in these reports are personal residences, the workplace of 
spouses, the name and location of a child's school; and an employee's 
vacation home.
  In 1998, 20 years after the enactment of the Ethics in Government 
Act, the potential of these types of disclosures to place individual 
judges at serious risk of personal harm had become manifest. In 1979, 
U.S. District Court Judge John Wood, Jr., was fatally shot outside of 
his home by assassin Charles Harrelson. The murder contract had been 
placed by Texas drug lord Jamiel Chagra, who was awaiting trial before 
the judge.
  In 1988, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Daronco was murdered at 
his house by Charles Koster, the father of the unsuccessful plaintiff 
in a discrimination case. The following year, U.S. Circuit Court Judge 
Richard Vance was killed by a letter bomb sent to his home. The letter 
bomb was attributed to racist animus against Judge Vance for writing an 
opinion reversing a lower-court ruling to lift an 18-year desegregation 
order from the Duval County, Florida schools.
  In light of these and other tragedies, Congress responded by adding a 
new subsection to the Ethics in Government Act temporarily authorizing 
the Judicial Conference to redact information from judges' financial 
disclosure reports under certain circumstances. Under that subsection, 
a report may be redacted ``(i) to the extent necessary to protect the 
individual who filed the report; and (ii) for as long as the danger to 
such individual exists.'' The Act further charged the U.S. Judicial 
Conference, in consultation which the Department of Justice, with the 
task of submitting to the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary 
an annual report documenting redactions.
  In 2001, the House of Representatives approved a bill striking the 
sunset clause and making the redaction authority permanent but the 
Senate Governmental Affairs Committee did not concur. The Senate was 
concerned that such authority could hamper the effectiveness of the 
judicial confirmation and oversight process by unwarranted reliance on 
the redaction authority to avoid revealing stock holdings and other 
financial assets, and in some cases, the complete withholding of all 
financial information contrary to the intent of the statute. 
Ultimately, Senate recommended extending the redaction authority for 4 
more years, until December 31, 2005. This authority has now expired and 
necessitates the extension provided by H.R. 1130.
  Mr. Speaker, the Judiciary Committee considered and properly rejected 
permanently granting this authority to the Judicial Conference because 
of the legitimate concern that such authority could be abused in such a 
way as to withhold information that properly should be disclosed. A 
temporary 4-year extension, on the other hand, would effectively allow 
for a more in-depth investigation of areas of concern before Congress 
must decide whether to make the authority permanent. I believe this is 
the most prudent way to proceed.
  Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 1130 because it preserves an important 
means of protecting the safety of those who work in the federal 
judiciary. Particularly in this age of the global war on terror, the 
danger faced by federal judges, judicial officers, and court personnel 
is real, as illustrated by the three murders noted above. The recent 
and tragic murder of U.S. District Court Judge Joan Humphrey Letkow's 
husband and mother reminds us that the danger has not abated.
  For all of these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 1130 and urge 
by colleagues to do likewise.

                          ____________________