[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 69 (Wednesday, April 27, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H4521-H4523]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COURTHOUSE ETHICS AND TRANSPARENCY ACT
Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (S. 3059) to amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to provide
for a periodic transaction reporting requirement for Federal judicial
officers and the online publication of financial disclosure reports of
Federal judicial officers, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
S. 3059
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Courthouse Ethics and
Transparency Act''.
SEC. 2. PERIODIC TRANSACTION REPORTS AND ONLINE PUBLICATION
OF FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REPORTS OF FEDERAL
JUDGES.
(a) Periodic Transaction Reporting Requirement for Federal
Judges.--
(1) In general.--Section 103(l) of the Ethics in Government
Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(11) Each judicial officer.
``(12) Each bankruptcy judge appointed under section 152 of
title 28, United States Code.
``(13) Each United States magistrate judge appointed under
section 631 of title 28, United States Code.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall apply to applicable transactions occurring on or after
the date that is 90 days after the date of enactment of this
Act.
(b) Online Publication of Financial Disclosure Reports of
Federal Judges.--Section 105 of the Ethics in Government Act
of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections
(d) and (e), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c) Online Publication of Financial Disclosure Reports of
Federal Judges.--
``(1) Establishment of database.--Subject to paragraph (4),
not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of the
Courthouse Ethics and Transparency Act, the Administrative
Office of the United States Courts shall establish a
searchable internet database to enable public access to any
report required to be filed under this title by a judicial
officer, bankruptcy judge, or magistrate judge.
``(2) Availability.--Not later than 90 days after the date
on which a report is required to be filed under this title by
a judicial officer, bankruptcy judge, or magistrate judge,
the Administrative Office of the United States Courts shall
make the report available on the database established under
paragraph (1) in a full-text searchable, sortable, and
downloadable format for access by the public.
``(3) Redaction.--Any report made available on the database
established under paragraph (1) shall not contain any
information that is redacted in accordance with subsection
(b)(3).
``(4) Additional time.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the
requirements of this subsection may be implemented after the
date described in paragraph (1) if the Administrative Office
of the United States Courts identifies in writing to the
relevant committees of Congress the additional time needed
for that implementation.
``(B) Publication requirement.--The Administrative Office
of the United States Courts shall continue to make the
reports described in paragraph (1) available to the public
during the period in which the Administrative Office of the
United States Courts establishes the database under this
subsection.''.
(c) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 103(l) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978
(5 U.S.C. App.) (as amended by subsection (a)(1)) is
amended--
(A) in paragraph (9), by striking ``, as defined under
section 109(12)''; and
(B) in paragraph (10), by striking ``, as defined under
section 109(13)''.
(2) Section 105 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5
U.S.C. App.) (as amended by subsection (b)) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``be revealing'' and
inserting ``by revealing''; and
(B) in subsection (b)--
(i) in paragraph (1)--
(I) in the first sentence, by striking ``be,,'' and
inserting ``be,''; and
(II) in the third sentence, by striking ``may be may'' and
inserting ``may be, may''; and
(ii) in paragraph (3)(A), by striking ``described in
section 109(8) or 109(10) of this Act'' and inserting ``who
is a judicial officer or a judicial employee''.
(3) Section 107(a)(1) of the Ethics in Government Act of
1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) is amended in the last sentence by
striking ``and (d)'' and inserting ``and (e)''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Jeffries) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
General Leave
Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to
[[Page H4522]]
revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S.
3059.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, S. 3059, the Courthouse Ethics and Transparency Act of
2021, embodies an important bipartisan effort to address an alarming
lack of transparency in the personal financial holdings of Article III
Federal judges and the conflicts, or appearance of conflicts, those
holdings can create in the cases these judges are asked to preside over
and decide.
This legislation makes incremental but necessary progress toward
accountability by building on Federal statutes that already prohibit
judges from deciding cases in which they have a personal financial
stake in the outcome.
It has been the law in this country since the 1970s that judges must
recuse themselves from any case in which they hold a legal or equitable
interest of any size in any party or property under consideration.
To help ensure that recusals occur as required, Federal law often
mandates that judges file annual reports disclosing their personal
financial interests so that the litigants, press, and the general
public can monitor and check these responsibilities.
Unfortunately, recent reporting by a Pulitzer Prize-winning
investigative reporter and a hearing by the Judiciary Committee's
Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet have
shown that the law is not working as intended. The infrequency of
judges' financial disclosures and the inaccessibility of the reports
have made actual transparency practically impossible.
When the House first passed this version of the legislation last
year, an investigation revealed that, between 2010 and 2018, over 130
Federal judges had decided cases in which they are part owners of the
parties before them. Over 60 judges have actively traded shares in
entities involved in their courthouse deliberations while their cases
were still ongoing and, in some cases, profited from these trades.
At the time, this investigation also discovered approximately 685
cases where judges should have, according to the law, recused
themselves. That number has continued to climb and now stands north of
a thousand cases. So far, judges in 836 cases have notified the parties
that the case can be reopened because the judge unlawfully failed to
recuse.
While these numbers are incredibly alarming on their own, they may
simply be the tip of the iceberg. I am sorry to say that we can expect
these numbers may continue to grow as more data becomes available and
investigations continue.
The consequences of these actions are both acute and widespread.
Failure to recuse can cause real harm to parties seeking fair and
impartial justice and leave a cloud of doubt over any decision that is
made once the conflicts are subsequently uncovered.
S. 3059 addresses these problems by requiring Federal judges to abide
by the same periodic transaction reporting laws already applicable to
Members of Congress and senior executive branch officials.
The bill also requires the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
to create an online database of judicial financial disclosure reports
and to timely update that database with searchable, sortable, and
downloadable copies of disclosure reports as they become available so
that litigants, the press, and the public can analyze and access this
information in real time.
The two versions of this legislation, including the original version
passed by the House and the bill currently before us, S. 3059, make two
notable changes.
First, it makes it crystal clear that these reforms also cover
bankruptcy and magistrate court judges. This is a welcome change.
Second, in response to concerns raised by the courts, it allows the
Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts to take more than
180 days to develop the public website and database containing judicial
financial disclosure reports so long as the Director provides the
Congress with a date certain when the website will launch. We expect
that the Administrative Office of the Courts will request no more time
than a few more months and will not use this authority to delay
disclosure.
These simple solutions are long overdue and the product of bicameral
and bipartisan collaboration.
I thank Congresswoman Ross for her leadership in this area and
Congressman Issa for championing this legislation. I also thank my
friend from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), chairman of the Subcommittee on the
Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, as well as Senator
Cornyn and the other Senators who worked on this bipartisan bill.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1230
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I
join with the chairman in support of all of the changes that were added
in the Senate, they were thoughtful, and I believe not just appropriate
but necessary.
I don't want to pile on the same statements made already because they
were accurate and I agree with them. Rather, because there has been
fairly public pushback from some members of the Article III court that
we are meddling in their business, I have given it a lot of thought and
discussed it with a number of scholars.
I think the American people need to understand that the executive
branch does not have the authority to pass laws, and the judicial
branch does not have the ability to pass laws. When it comes to
establishing laws for transparency reporting and the American people's
right to know, there is, in fact, only one body that can initiate and
send for the President's signature statutes of transparency and
accountability.
So even though this is a 1978 law being modified, the fact that there
is pushback from a branch saying that under separation of powers we are
somehow meddling by substantially harmonizing what the executive branch
and this branch do to make sure the American people have confidence in
what we own that might, in fact, be influencing what we do. It seems to
be one of those areas in which I believe the American people, properly
explained, would fully support.
For that reason, I would hope that as this bill becomes law that the
members of the court would recognize we had no choice. Faced with clear
examples--even one being too much--of a judge who had holdings and
simultaneously affected the value of those holdings while either owning
them or trading them or both, we had no choice but to recognize that
that absence of transparency was critical.
I want to simply close by saying that this is likely not to lead to a
lot more recusals. This is certainly going to lead to the kind of
information that attorneys need to have on behalf of their clients when
they are working through a case.
If you know that a judge or his spouse or her spouse owns something,
why wouldn't you be aware of that when you have a case involving that
company? If you know that they own a substantial amount of a sister
company, one that is not involved in the litigation, but in fact, could
benefit by an adverse decision, the attorneys for both sides should
know that.
We are just not dealing in the failure to recuse here. Reporting
transparency, in fact, empowers both sides to know the lay of the land
that might be very meaningful in a case. Yes, there will be some that
see that and ask for recusals. I trust that judges who, after the fact
when these 130 cases were reported, some of the judges said they didn't
know about it, they didn't know they had it, or they didn't know their
spouse had these holdings. That may very well be true. Some of them
said they didn't know they were supposed to report. That may be true.
But when this is implemented we will be in a position to say, of
course the public knew, and empowering the public on this not private
information because ultimately we are public officials. I am a public
official, the chairman is a public official, the Speaker is a public
official, and so are those honored to serve as magistrates, bankruptcy
judges, and Article III judges.
[[Page H4523]]
I hope that this minor change will represent a major step for us in
bringing back the confidence of the American people that they do not
have to blindly go into a case not knowing whether the heavy hand of
the law might be weighing against them without their knowledge.
Mr. Speaker, it seems like only yesterday I was speaking on this
subject.
This is an important step. I know that we will have broad bipartisan
support on it. I hope that we will have not just acceptance but an
embracement by the judges who now will be reporting and providing more
information to the public that the public has--and particularly
litigants--have every right to know before they go before that judge.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chair for his help in shepherding this bill,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Framers, in their infinite wisdom, created a system
of government with three separate and coequal branches: Article I,
legislative branch; Article II, executive branch; and Article III,
judicial branch, three separate but coequal branches of government.
Justice Brandeis once said: In a democracy, sunlight is the best of
disinfectants. There are standards of transparency and disclosure that
already exist as relates to the Article I legislative branch and senior
officials within the Article II executive branch. Those same standards
of transparency and disclosure allowing for accountability should exist
across the three branches of government. This legislation takes a
meaningful step in that direction.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Ross for her leadership. I thank
Congressman Issa for his leadership. I thank Chairman Johnson, as well
as Senator Cornyn, and those who have worked on this important
legislation in a bipartisan, bicameral way.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, S. 3059.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________