Congressional Record, Volume 157 Issue 134 (Monday, September 12, 2011)

[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 134 (Monday, September 12, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H6048-H6049]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

EXTENSION OF REDACTION AUTHORITY CONCERNING SENSITIVE SECURITY
INFORMATION

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(H.R. 1059) to protect the safety of judges by extending the authority
of the Judicial Conference to redact sensitive information contained in
their financial disclosure reports, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 1059

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF REDACTION AUTHORITY CONCERNING
SENSITIVE SECURITY INFORMATION.

Section 105(b)(3) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978
(5 U.S.C. App.) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``Marshall'' and
inserting ``Marshals''; and
(2) by striking subparagraph (E).

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Coble) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.

General Leave

Mr. COBLE. 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 materials on H.R. 1059 currently under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.

{time} 1620

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H6049]]

I support H.R. 1059 and again thank the distinguished gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for having sponsored it. I also thank the
distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) and the
distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson) for having served as
cosponsors.
H.R. 1059 promotes an important goal--providing security for Federal
judges. Under the Ethics in Government Act, judges and other high-level
judicial branch officials must file annual financial disclosure
reports. This requirement increases public confidence in government
officials and better enables the public to judge the performance of
those officials.
However, recognizing the nature of the judicial function and the
increased security risks it entails, Congress also enacted legislation
that allowed the Judicial Conference to redact statutorily required
information in a financial disclosure report where release of such
information could possibly endanger the filer or his or her family.
Those seeking to harm or intimidate Federal judges might use a
disclosure form to identify where someone's spouse or child works or
goes to school on a regular basis. However, individuals targeting
judges for harassment have also been known to file false liens on
properties owned by judges and their families. Harassers could use
judicial financial disclosure reports to more easily identify such
property.
The Judicial Conference delegated to its Committee on Financial
Disclosure the responsibility for implementing the financial disclosure
requirements for judges and judicial employees under the Ethics in
Government Act. The committee monitors the release of financial
disclosure reports to ensure compliance with the statute. In
consultation with the U.S. Marshals Service, the committee also reviews
and approves or disapproves any request for the redaction of
statutorily mandated information where the filer believes the release
of the information could endanger the filer or his or her family.
Under the Judicial Conference's regulations, no redaction will be
granted without a clear nexus between a security risk and the
information for which a redaction is sought. The law has worked well
through the years and has been reauthorized twice since 2001. But it
expires at the end of this calendar year if we fail to act--an outcome
that is unacceptable. Last year, the Marshals Service investigated and
analyzed almost 1,400 threats and inappropriate communications to
judicial officials--nearly three times as many threats recorded in
2003. There were more than 3,900 ``incidents'' and arrests at U.S.
court facilities in 2010.
Financial disclosures are an important part of maintaining an open
and transparent government, Mr. Speaker. But government transparency
should not come at the cost of personal security for government
officials. Judges and other judicial employees perform important work
that is integral to our democratic system of government. In order to
preserve the integrity of our democracy, we must protect the integrity
of our courts. And that means ensuring the security of judges and other
judicial employees from intimidation and threats.
In conclusion, there's no evidence that the law is being abused. I
support H.R. 1059 and urge my colleagues to extend the redaction
authority permanently.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chairman of Judiciary, Lamar
Smith, as well as the subcommittee chair, Mr. Coble, for swiftly moving
this through the Judiciary Committee. I think it has been explained
that the redaction of sensitive information for the benefit of members
of the judiciary is obvious and important. I am hoping that with my
consultation with the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee we
would be able to make the permanent feature that Howard Coble has
discussed a permanent one and a part of the law as it now exists.
H.R. 1059 gives the Judicial Conference of the United States
permanent authority to redact certain sensitive information from public
financial disclosures required by the Ethics in Government Act.
This important legislation, which was ordered reported from the
Judiciary Committee by voice vote, deserves the support of the entire
House for a number of reasons.
First, H.R. 1059 properly balances the purposes of the Ethics in
Government Act with the need to ensure the security of judges, judicial
employees, and their families.
The Ethics in Government Act serves to promote ethics and openness in
the federal government by reducing the risk of corruption or preventing
the appearance of impropriety.
The Act accomplishes this objective by requiring the public
disclosure of certain information, including identification of personal
financial information, non-governmental sources of income, gifts,
property interests, and liabilities.
Unfortunately, the required disclosures can also include critical
information about the filer's residence, a spouse's workplace, a
child's workplace, or a vacation home. This information has the
potential to place individual judges, employees, and their families at
risk. The bill's redaction authority is critical to ensuring that this
information does not get into the wrong hands.
Second, the risk to the personal safety of federal judges and court
employees from disclosure of personal location information is real.
But, without further action, this important protection for judicial
security will expire at the end of this year.
And, finally, making this redaction authority permanent will not lead
to abuse of such authority.
The federal judiciary has utilized such authority very sparingly.
For instance, there were 17,658 financial disclosure filings between
2007 and 2010. Of those, there were 750 instances where filers
requested redaction. Of that number, 645 redaction requests were
granted in full, while 70 requests were granted in part, and 35
requests were denied.
Thus, in only 4.2 percent of filings was redaction even requested,
and not all of those were granted.
It's clear, based on these statistics, that the federal judiciary
exercises considerable restraint in applying its redaction authority in
recognition of the need for public disclosure.
The Government Accountability Office similarly reported in 2004 that
the judiciary's exercise of its redaction authority provided a measure
of security to at-risk individuals, while not substantially interfering
with dissemination of information to the public.
Congress first recognized the value of granting redaction authority
to the judiciary back in 1998. It has repeatedly reauthorized redaction
authority on a temporary basis since then, except for a two-year lapse
in 2006 and 2007.
In order to avoid future lapses, this redaction authority should be
made permanent.
In closing, I would like to thank Chairman Lamar Smith and
Subcommittee Chair Howard Coble for moving this important legislation
through the committee and swiftly to the floor. I urge my colleagues to
support this legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1059.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

____________________