[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 196 (Monday, December 19, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H9937-H9938]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    EXTENSION OF REDACTION AUTHORITY CONCERNING SENSITIVE SECURITY 
                              INFORMATION

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
concur in the Senate amendment to 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 Senate amendment is as follows:

       Senate amendment:
       On page 2, line 6 through 8 strike and insert:
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``Marshall'' and 
     inserting ``Marshals'';
       (2) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ``and the Senate 
     Committee on Homeland Security and

[[Page H9938]]

     Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform'' after ``Senate''; and
       (3) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``2011'' both places 
     it appears and inserting ``2017''.

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and to include extraneous material on the motion to 
concur currently under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1640

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I support H.R. 1059 and thank Mr. Conyers for sponsoring it. I also 
thank Mr. Cohen of Tennessee and Mr. Johnson of Georgia for serving 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, Congress enacted legislation that 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 their family.
  Those who seek 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. Individuals targeting judges for 
harassment have also been known to file false claims on property 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 to implement 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 U.S. Marshals Service, the committee also 
reviews and approves or disapproves any request for redaction or 
statutorily mandated information where the filer believes the release 
of the information could endanger the filer and their 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 
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 as recorded in 2003. And there were more 
than 3,900 incidents and arrests at U.S. court facilities in 2010.
  Financial disclosures help maintain an open and transparent 
government, 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.
  The Senate made two minor amendments to the bill, which we accept. 
The first amendment involves an annual report that the administrative 
Office of the U.S. Courts submits to the House and Senate Judiciary 
Committees. The report summarizes the redactions made in the preceding 
year and explains why they were made. The first amendment mandates that 
the report also be sent to the House Oversight and Government Reform 
Committee, as well as the Senate Homeland Security & Governmental 
Affairs Committee. The second amendment sunsets the redaction authority 
after 6 years, in 2017.
  Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 1059, as amended by the Senate, and urge 
my colleagues to extend the redaction authority.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to commend the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the 
gentleman from Texas, Lamar Smith, for his cooperation in bringing this 
bill out of committee and through the Congress.
  On September 12 of this year, my bill passed the House unanimously. 
The requirement that judges and judicial branch employees disclose 
their personal finances promotes openness in the Federal Government. It 
reduces the risk of corruption, prevents the appearance of impropriety, 
and also sheds some transparency on what we do in the third branch of 
government.
  Unfortunately, sometimes these required disclosures can include 
specific 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. So what we're doing here is allowing a redaction by the Judicial 
Conference. The bill's redaction authority is critical to ensuring that 
this information does not get into the wrong hands and the whole idea 
is to make sure that some of the Federal judges whose lives have been 
lost and others whose family members have lost their lives by 
disgruntled litigants will not be made available to them.
  The Judicial Conference is very careful in granting redaction 
authority. And although I would have preferred a permanent redaction 
authority, I'm perfectly willing to support a 6-year authority with 
extension possibilities. I look forward to the President signing this 
bill into law immediately.
  I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time 
as well.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) that the House suspend the rules and 
concur in the Senate amendment to 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. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground 
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum 
is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________