[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.

                          ____________________