[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 20]
[House]
[Pages 27645-27647]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT ACT OF 1978 AMENDMENT

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
the bill (H.R. 4311) to amend section 105(b)(3) of the Ethics in 
Government Act of 1978.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4311

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,
       That section 105(b)(3) of the Ethics in Government Act of 
     1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) is amended by striking subparagraph (E).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. 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. 4311 currently 
under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4311, 
which would reauthorize a crucial judicial security measure. Under the 
Ethics in Government Act, judges and other high-level judicial branch 
officials must file annual disclosure reports. In the 105th Congress, 
we enacted the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998, 
which allows the Judicial Conference to redact statutorily required 
information in a financial disclosure report where the release of that 
information could endanger the filer or his or her family. This 
provision was extended for 4 years in the 107th Congress and is due to 
expire on December 31 of this year.
  H.R. 4311 would permanently extend this important component of 
Federal judicial security. This legislation was recently passed on the 
House floor on November 9 by a vote of 375-45 as a provision of H.R. 
1751; but since the other body has not taken up that bill, I have 
introduced this freestanding measure.
  Judges today face a number of threats from convicted criminals 
seeking revenge against those who have presided over their trial to 
defendants seeking to influence a judge during a trial. In some cases, 
Federal judges and their families have been subject to more than just 
threats, as has been demonstrated by the murder of Judge Joan Lefkow's 
husband and elderly mother in their own home by a former plaintiff in 
Chicago earlier this year.
  Since the authority was enacted in 1998 and renewed in 2001, Federal 
judges have been able to request the temporary redaction of some or all 
of the information on their disclosure forms. The Marshals Service must 
agree that the information on their disclosure forms could be used to 
harm the judge or his or her family in order for it to be redacted.
  Disclosure information might seem to some to be an unlikely source of 
useful information to someone looking to harm a judge. That is a flawed 
assumption. For example, the fact that a judge's daughter has received 
a scholarship from a particular college must be reported on that 
judge's disclosure form. This information can then be used to identify 
the location of the judge's daughter.
  Under this existing authority, judges are still required to make 
semi-annual disclosures and are only allowed to redact information 
during the time in which a threat exists. Once the threat ends, the 
information is once again made public. The GAO undertook an audit of 
this authority in 2004 and found minimal issues.
  As a strong proponent of government openness and oversight, I 
recognize the impact of redaction authority. However, I also recognize 
that judges should not be forced to put their lives on the line or 
those of their families simply by doing their jobs. This fair and 
impartial administration of justice requires freedom from fear and 
intimidation. This legislation helps protect judges and their families 
from fear of reprisal.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4311. 
This bill protects judges against certain security threats. The 
September 11 tragedy

[[Page 27646]]

and events thereafter have only heightened the security concerns that 
make this legislation necessary.
  H.R. 4311 permanently extends the ability of judges to request 
redaction of their financial disclosure reports. The current redaction 
authority sunsets at the end of this year. Thus it is imperative that 
we act quickly to get this bill to the Senate where we hope it will 
pass before the end of the year so that the legislation can be enacted.
  The redaction authority for judges is appropriately limited and thus 
should not raise concerns about undue restrictions on public access to 
financial disclosure reports. A judge's report may only be redacted if 
the Judicial Conference and the U.S. Marshals Service both find that 
revealing the personal and sensitive information could endanger that 
particular judge. Furthermore, the report can only be redacted to the 
extent necessary to protect the judge and only for so long as a danger 
exists.
  The redaction authority has not been abused to date. Of over 2,000 
judges filing reports in 2000, only 6 percent had their reports 
redacted in any way. Typically, the information redacted is limited to 
such things as a spouse's place of work, location of a judge's second 
home and things of that nature. It is obvious how a person of ill will 
could misuse that information to harm a judge or the judge's family.
  This law is tightly drawn, and it requires the Judicial Conference, 
in concert with the Department of Justice, to file an annual report 
detailing the number and circumstances of all of the redactions. This 
statutory reporting requirement enables Congress to monitor for any 
abuse of the redaction authority, so I would urge my colleagues to vote 
``yes'' on this legislation.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter).
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  This is a critically important piece of legislation that everyone in 
the House should support without reservation. H.R. 4311, which amends 
the 1978 Ethics in Government Act, will make permanent an expiring 
provision which protects the safety of our Nation's judges as well as 
the integrity of our judicial system.
  And I know that everyone here remembers, as Mr. Sensenbrenner just 
reminded us, the horrifying murders of a Chicago judge's family members 
this past summer. These crimes were committed by an individual, who was 
angered by a ruling on his case. He went to the judge's home to 
confront her and, while there, shot her husband and mother in cold 
blood.
  The bill we have before us will allow judges who have been threatened 
to withhold certain personal information from public record, 
information, such as their home address, that has been used in the past 
for the most tragic of ends.
  And I want to emphasize that I strongly support the bill and I 
commend the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for bringing it to the 
floor today. No one here wishes to avoid our responsibility to protect 
those men and women who form the bedrock of our legal system, nor do 
any of us desire to in any way detract from the significance of this 
bill.
  However, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this bill does not go far 
enough. My conscience compels me to pause here and remind my friends on 
the other side of the aisle that we are discussing a reform to the 
Ethics in Government Act, which should be extended to really talk about 
ethics in government, a vitally important piece of legislation which, 
when it was passed, confirmed the national commitment to the creation 
and preservation of the government as good and as ethical as the people 
it serves.
  I, therefore, cannot let this moment pass without speaking of what 
has become a standing source of shame for this body and for this 
Nation: the collapse of ethical conduct within our House. Mr. Speaker, 
I have no choice but to speak of the topic here and now because this is 
the last time the House will address the subject of ethics this year.
  Ethics reform has not made the Republican leadership's December 
agenda, just like it has not made the cut all year long. But the 
ethical conduct of Members of this body is on the minds of those in 
whose interest we claim to act, the American people. They are demanding 
that action be taken, and it is on their behalf that I speak now.
  The bill we will hopefully approve today is an example of the kind of 
legislation we should be passing here. It puts the well-being of the 
American people first. But the majority ushered in the year by putting 
itself first, gutting the ethical standards imposed on Members of this 
body so that they could more easily take advantage of the people's 
trust and get away with it.
  With a little time and distance, it is now painfully obvious why the 
leadership went to such great lengths to roll back the ethics rules of 
the conference and of this House. A prolonged and impassioned public 
outcry forced the majority to abandon this blatant assault on ethics 
several months later, but the battle was far from over.
  Even though the Republicans were shamed into retreat on the ethical 
assault, we have not had a working Ethics Committee in this House all 
year and we still do not today. As Members may recall, the majority 
initially attempted to eliminate its power, and when it could not do 
that, it fired the qualified investigative staff and tried to 
deliberately politicize the committee, and we have not had a working 
ethics process since. Only recently have we been able to forge an 
agreement which could restart the ethics process next year. And for 
both his principled stand in defense of the rules of the body and for 
his patience and commitment to restoring the ethics process, I commend 
the ranking member of the committee.
  But the real question still lingers: What was the majority hiding? 
Despite their best efforts, the truth has come forth, and every day 
brings a new revelation which demonstrates the extent to which power 
has been abused and corruption scandals have mounted. Indictments and 
resignations have dominated the headlines. And Member after Member of 
this body has been shown they have committed their votes not in the 
public interest, but to special interests, those who seek the benefit 
of the few at the expense of the many.
  Critical decisions at Federal agencies are being unethically 
manipulated by White House political operatives, and the results of 
these decisions are having a direct impact on the people of this 
Nation.
  Make no mistake about it. This White House and this leadership have 
placed America up for sale to the highest bidder, and it is the 
American people paying the price while corrupt politicians and special 
interests reap the profits.
  Citizens of this Nation have watched it all, stunned, disillusioned, 
and increasingly angry. The majority leader of the House repeatedly 
admonished on ethical violations and is now indicted for money 
laundering. A Member resigned in shame and pled guilty to bribery. New 
investigations by the Justice Department threatening to embroil many 
more of our colleagues in the growing stench of corruption surrounding 
Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
  And as the public trust is battered and broken and potential ethics 
investigations pile up, the Ethics Committee chairman, who fired an 
experienced staff and supported changing the rules, has announced he 
will not conduct additional investigations into serious allegations of 
corruption because we do not have the money. Apparently, we cannot 
afford an ethics process in this government, only more tax cuts.
  From this majority leadership, there has been no leadership. And the 
startling truth is it has been almost 12 months since we have had a 
functioning ethics process in the House. We still have no working 
Ethics Committee. We have no ethics reform. And after 12 months, we 
have scandal and deception and only silence, and that has become a 
national shame.
  The time for accountability is now. The time for real reform is now. 
And

[[Page 27647]]

the time for change is certainly now. And surely, Mr. Speaker, America 
can do better than this.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill to make 
permanent an expiring provision in the current law that ensures 
protection for judges and for their families when they are threatened 
and they may be in danger. This is a much-needed revision of the 1978 
Ethics in Government Act. But, in addition, this House would do well to 
pass a 2005 Ethics in Government Act of its own.
  Indeed, we have seen in recent months how broken the ethics process 
in this body is. Had the majority shown as much initiative in fixing 
that process as it has in bringing this bill to the floor, perhaps we 
would not have seen Members of that majority indicted or pleading 
guilty to charges of bribery, money laundering, and tax evasion. As it 
stands, the Washington Post says investigators are now looking into the 
actions of at least a half dozen Members of Congress, senior 
congressional staff, one former Deputy Secretary of the Interior, and 
several lobbyists.
  In the wake of the tragic murder of a Chicago judge last summer, the 
underlying legislation we consider takes steps to protect that 
judiciary. But in the wake of countless scandals that continue to bring 
shame to this institution and the majority, Democrats believe that the 
time has come to protect the integrity of the judicial process as well.
  Mr. Speaker, just as we must protect the hardworking judicial 
officials in our country, so must we protect the American people, whom 
this breakdown in the ethics process impacts the most. As the 
leadership of this House spends more time in courthouses than in the 
people's House doing the people's business, they are the ones that we 
are putting at risk when we fail to protect our homeland, as the 
September 11 Commission chairman found just this week.
  I support this legislation. But the time has come to put the needs of 
people before the special interests of the lobbyists.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).
  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. I think it 
is a fantastic bill. I congratulate the chairman and ranking member for 
putting this bill forward. It has been wisely thought out and well 
written, and I look forward to voting in its favor. However, it is not 
the only ethics issue that we have.
  I am not one who has ever in any situation said to anybody that 
anyone should be considered guilty until proven so; however, the 
process that we have here has not been working, and we all know it. And 
as one Member, while we are doing something on ethics, I thought it was 
important to mention that this House should also be moving forward on 
our own ethics investigations.
  For 1 year we have had an Ethics Committee that really has not done 
much. It has been stalled. It has been delayed. It has been 
sidetracked. I am not going to presume what the results of any of the 
investigations would be. I think that would be wrong and inappropriate. 
Nonetheless, as one Member, I am embarrassed for this country that we 
have failed to do our job and our duty to look into the ethics issues 
of our own Members when allegations are brought forth.
  This bill is a good bill. This bill is something that we should be 
doing. But it is not enough if we really want to deal with the ethics 
issues that are facing the American people today.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very important bill. It deals with the 
protection of judges, and I would hope that the Members of the House 
would pass the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I deeply appreciate all of the comments from my friends 
on the other side of the aisle about what a great bill this is. I thank 
them for that. It is a great bill.
  But what we have seen here with this great bill and this necessary 
bill being brought up in order to protect judges and their families and 
court personnel is another example of why this House has sunk into 
partisan politics. Partisan politics should have nothing to do with 
whether or not we give the judicial conference the authority to redact 
personal information necessary to protect the safety of judges and 
their families. But nonetheless, we have heard from three Members on 
the other side of the aisle in basically making a partisan attack.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a time for partisan politics and there is a 
time to deal with the people's business. This bill deals with the 
people's business. I appreciate the support from the folks on the other 
side of the aisle, but, Mr. Speaker, this was not the vehicle to launch 
a partisan attack, and I am sorry that they chose to do so.
  I urge support of the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bishop of Utah). The question is on the 
motion offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that 
the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4311.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________