[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 155 (Wednesday, September 27, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H7549-H7551]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXTENSION OF REDACTION AUTHORITY CONCERNING SENSITIVE SECURITY
INFORMATION
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(H.R. 3229) 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, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 3229
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)(E) of the Ethics in Government Act of
1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) is amended by striking ``2017'' both
places it appears and inserting ``2027''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Issa) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
General Leave
Mr. ISSA. 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. 3229, currently under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As chairman of the Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet
Subcommittee, I recognize the importance of judicial security needs.
Federal judges hear cases involving hardened criminals on a regular
basis. Although not everyone threatens a Federal judge and not everyone
is a gang member, many are. Federal judges and their families should
not be at risk for simply doing their jobs.
Congress provides funding for a variety of judicial security needs by
building secure court houses, staffing metal detectors at entrances,
and so on, but there is a simple way to address security needs without
extending taxpayer dollars. One method is to redact specific
information from judicial financial disclosure reports done by the
judges and other key employees. If they are to be targeted, we cannot
have a judge's home address or other information that allows tracking
by a criminal to, in fact, be a source of their demise.
The redaction authority has been in place since Congress began, in
1998, to allow for this, and it has been extended and expanded, in a
number of cases, to include family members. The redaction process
requires input and agreement from the U.S. Marshals Service.
The legislation that my colleague from New York (Mr. Jeffries) and I
introduced would extend the redaction authority for an additional 10
years, until December 31, 2027. There is no financial impact from this,
and it serves to put judges and their families in a position they have
historically been in since 1998: less at risk by this information being
disclosed.
I not only urge the House to support this legislation, but after
careful consideration and research, we find that this authority has not
been abused, it has been properly used, and the Federal judges have
earned the absolute right to this limited redaction.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3229, which will extend for 10
years the soon expiring authority for Federal judges and judicial
officers to redact from financial disclosure forms sensitive personal
information that, if revealed, could compromise their safety and
security.
An independent judiciary that is free of coercion is fundamental to
our constitutional democracy, fundamental to
[[Page H7550]]
the principle of liberty and justice for all, and fundamental to the
principle of equal protection under the law. Unfortunately, in this
country, there are some who seek to compromise the integrity of the
judicial branch through threats, harm, and harassment.
According to the U.S. Marshals Service, in fiscal year 2017, there
has been an increase in every major recorded statistical category
regarding the targeting of members of the Federal bench and judiciary
employees. Failure to extend this authority will create grave security
risks to judges, judiciary employees, and their families.
Each year, only a very small percentage of the financial disclosure
reports filed contain an approved redaction of information. Redaction
only occurs if there is a clear nexus between a security risk and the
information for which redaction is sought.
Federal judges and other employees of the judicial branch routinely
interact with disgruntled litigants or dangerous defendants and others
who may seek to do them harm.
For example, in 2016, a disgruntled defendant was convicted of a
diabolical plot to kidnap, torture, and murder U.S. District Judge
Andrew J. Guilford, who presided over that defendant's wire fraud
conviction.
In March of this year, the FBI reported that U.S. District Judge
Derek Watson, who issued a temporary retaining order against the
President's travel ban, has subsequently been the target of repeated
violent threats.
In April, Jason Springer, an ISIS sympathizer, was indicted on a
charge of threatening to murder U.S. District Judge Elizabeth
Kovachevich by flying an explosive drone into her window.
The need to extend the redaction authority is a time-sensitive
security matter, and I thank Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member
Conyers, Subcommittee Chairman Issa, and Ranking Member Nadler of the
subcommittee, for their leadership on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Nadler), the distinguished ranking member of the
Subcommittee on the Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3229, which would
extend an important tool in protecting the safety of judges and their
families.
Each year, Federal judges and certain other judicial employees are
required to file financial disclosure reports which are made available
to the public. These reports serve a vital function in promoting
transparency, particularly of any potential conflicts of interest.
By their nature, however, they also disclose sensitive personal
information like a home address or family member's place of business.
In the hands of a disgruntled member of the public seeking retribution
or of an otherwise disturbed individual, this information could put
judges and their families at great risk.
{time} 1645
Under current law, the Judicial Conference may redact information
from a financial disclosure form if publishing such information could
endanger the safety of the filer or a member of the filer's family.
Unless Congress acts, this redaction authority will expire on December
31 of this year. This commonsense bill simply extends the redaction
authority for 10 years.
Unfortunately, many Federal judges face threats to their safety
merely for doing their jobs, and according to the Judicial Conference,
the number of threats against them are increasing. For example, an Ohio
man recently pleaded guilty to arranging a murder-for-hire plot against
a judge; an alleged ISIS sympathizer who was attempting to learn a
judge's address was indicted a few months ago for threatening the
judge; and last year, a California man, who was already in prison, was
convicted of plotting to have the Federal judge, prosecutors, and FBI
agents killed as revenge.
Sadly, earlier this year, we also saw threats against several judges
who ruled against President Trump's Muslim ban. After the President
himself launched a verbal assault against the judges and against the
Federal judiciary more generally, the judges faced a cascade of online
threats and they required heightened security measures. Even without
such irresponsible and dangerous behavior by the President, Federal
judges regularly face threats, and this legislation is an important
tool in protecting their safety.
Although disclosure forms should only be redacted in the most extreme
and limited circumstances, the Judicial Conference has used its
redaction authority sparingly and wisely, and it should continue to
have this authority available to it when circumstances warrant its use.
I appreciate Mr. Jeffries' leadership in introducing this
legislation. I want to recognize Ranking Member Conyers for the work he
has done to champion this issue over the years as well. I thank
Chairman Goodlatte and Mr. Issa for moving this bipartisan bill
forward.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time I have remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 14 minutes
remaining.
Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a distinguished champion
of safety of Federal judges.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from New
York for a very thoughtful and, really, a crucial element to justice.
Allow me to acknowledge Mr. Jeffries for his leadership, Mr. Conyers
and Mr. Goodlatte for working in a bipartisan manner, and the manager
of the bill for his support, and indicate that this has evidence that
we wish we did not have to see or could not document.
I know that in my own State just a couple of years ago, the Federal
judge in San Antonio was attacked and, in my recollection, lost his
life. So we realize that justice requires us to eliminate impediments
of fear and danger that may come to the Federal judiciary.
This thoughtful legislation to redact addresses and other personal
information from financial disclosure forms of all of the judiciary,
magistrates, and appeals courts, district courts, obviously, and the
Supreme Court, is crucial for the courts that represent the third
branch of government and really represent a need of the kind of
stovepipe to allow them to render justice.
So on the financial disclosure forms, they are important for
transparency, but I want to acknowledge that, unfortunately, there are
individuals who would take out their disgust or contempt for the
Federal Government and take that contempt out on the courts.
For that reason and for the reason that it has been reported that
there are terrorist cells in every State, that we don't know from where
that threat will come, and the fact that we have this very important
bill, I want to congratulate the author of the bill. I hope that we
will pass this bill as quickly as possible, which protects our Federal
judiciary by allowing their personal information and that of their
family members to be redacted because justice has to be kept safe and
secure.
Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I, too, would close by urging my colleagues to
support this well-thought-out, well authored, and in regular hearings
by the committee, universally accepted as necessary and reasonable for
a 10-year extension.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the bill, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
3229, a bipartisan, commonsense measure intended to protect the safety
of federal judges and judicial employees.
The bill accomplishes this critical goal by extending the authority
of the Judicial Conference to redact sensitive information contained in
the financial disclosure reports filed by these individuals pursuant to
the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. Specifically, H.R. 3229 would
extend this authority for 10 years, that is, until December 31, 2027.
I am an original cosponsor and strong supporter of this bill for
several reasons.
To begin with, absent a further extension of this authority, the
Judicial Conference's ability to redact sensitive personal information
from the financial disclosure statements filed by judges and judicial
employees would cease
[[Page H7551]]
and thereby create potentially serious security risks to these
individuals.
Judges and judicial employees are often the subject of threats,
harassment, and violence. Like probation officers, these individuals
routinely interact with disgruntled litigants and convicted criminals
who may hold grudges against them.
A resentful litigant seeking to take revenge for a judicial decision
can learn of a federal judge's home address, his or her spouse's place
of employment, or a child's school, among other types of sensitive
information, by requesting a copy of the judge's financial disclosure
report.
During 2016, for instance, a federal judge was shot in front of his
home, a murder-for-hire plot against a federal judge was uncovered, and
threatening letters were sent to other judges.
Fortunately, section 105 of the Ethics in Government Act grants the
Judicial Conference the authority to redact certain limited information
from financial disclosure reports when the release of such information
could endanger a judge, a judicial employee, or a member of their
family.
Congress has extended this redaction authority on 5 previous
occasions, most recently on January 3, 2012.
Another reason why I support H.R. 3229 is that the Judicial
Conference has exercised its redaction authority with demonstrated
restraint.
As required by the Ethics in Government Act, the Conference has
promulgated regulations requiring a clear nexus between a security risk
and the need to redact sensitive information.
In addition, the Act requires the Judicial Conference to report
annually to Congress on the number and nature of redactions as well as
the reasons for them.
Based on a review of these reports, it is clear that only a small
percentage of the financial disclosure reports filed contain an
approved redaction of some information in the report.
For example, less than 3 percent of financial reports contained an
approved redaction of some information over the past 5 years.
Finally, the need to extend this redaction authority--which will
expire in just over 3 months--is a time-sensitive security matter that
requires prompt consideration of H.R. 3229.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3229, which will
simply extend the Judicial Conference's current redaction authority for
an additional 10 years.
In closing, I want to commend Congressman Hakeem Jeffries for his
leadership on this important legislation. We share his commitment to
protecting the security of those public servants who serve in the
federal judicial branch.
Accordingly, I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 3229, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________