[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 7102-7104]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 JUDICIAL DISCLOSURE RESPONSIBILITY ACT

  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend 
the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1130) to amend the Ethics in 
Government Act of 1978 to extend the authority to withhold from public 
availability a financial disclosure report filed by an individual who 
is a judicial officer or judicial employee, to the extent necessary to 
protect the safety of that individual or a family member of that 
individual, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 1130

       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 ``Judicial Disclosure 
     Responsibility Act''.

     SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF FAMILY MEMBERS.

       Section 105(b)(3) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 
     (5 U.S.C. App.) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``or a family member 
     of that individual'' after ``that individual''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B)(i), by inserting ``or a family 
     member of that individual'' after ``the report''.

     SEC. 3. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REPORTS.

       (a) Extension of Authority.--Section 105(b)(3) of the 
     Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) is amended 
     by striking ``2005'' each place that term appears and 
     inserting ``2009''.
       (b) Report Contents.--Section 105(b)(3)(C) of the Ethics in 
     Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) is amended--
       (1) in clause (ii), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in clause (iii), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iv) the nature or type of information redacted;
       ``(v) what steps or procedures are in place to ensure that 
     sufficient information is available to litigants to determine 
     if there is a conflict of interest;
       ``(vi) principles used to guide implementation of redaction 
     authority; and
       ``(vii) any public complaints received relating to 
     redaction.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Smith) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.


                             General Leave

  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 1130, the 
Judicial Disclosure Responsibility Act. This legislation would amend 
the Ethics in Government Act by extending for an additional 4 years the 
Judicial Conference's authority to redact information, as necessary, to 
protect judicial employees and their families.
  In 1998, Congress recognized the potential threats against individual 
judges and authorized the judicial branch to redact, as circumstances 
may require, information from financial disclosure reports before they 
are released to the public. This bill will allow the courts to continue 
taking necessary steps to protect judges, their staffs and their 
families.
  Past incidences of violence against judges and their families 
demonstrate the need for this legislation. Most notable was the matter 
involving Judge Joan Lefkow. On April 6, 2003, a defendant was 
sentenced to 4 years imprisonment for soliciting the murder of Judge 
Lefkow. Two years later, that same judge returned to her home one day 
and found her husband and mother murdered by a former litigant whose 
case Judge Lefkow had dismissed.
  We need to restore the judiciary's authority in appropriate 
circumstances to protect their personal information about residences 
and other frequented locations so as to better ensure their security 
and peace of mind.
  The redaction authority has been used sparingly. In a report to the 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the Judicial 
Conference reported that of the 3,942 Federal judiciary employees 
required to file financial disclosure reports in 2004, only 177 reports 
were redacted before release, and those only partially. It is with the 
greatest care that these documents are redacted to maintain an 
appropriate balance between protection of judiciary employees and the 
public's right to know about potential conflicts of interest.
  This legislation was favorably reported out of the House Committee on 
the Judiciary. It would ensure the protection of personal information 
of the judicial branch while ensuring that the public retains its right 
to access annual disclosure reports.
  We cannot expect judges to effectively carry out their duties if they 
are forced to expose themselves and their loved ones to danger. The 
effectiveness of our court system depends on ensuring they can take 
reasonable steps to protect their safety.
  I strongly support this important legislation, and urge its adoption 
by the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am an original cosponsor of this legislation and 
believe it is necessary to protect judges, their family members and the 
other courthouse personnel by preventing disclosure of personal 
information that can be used to target and retaliate against them.
  This legislation extends the authority of Federal judges and court 
personnel to redact sensitive and personal information from financial 
disclosure reports for security reasons. The current authority to 
redact personal and sensitive information from financial disclosure 
reports expired at the end of 2005.
  Recent assaults and threats against Federal judges and their family 
members demonstrate the need for this redaction authority to continue. 
I believe this is an important safeguard to prevent vindictive 
offenders and litigants from seeking their revenge by harming or 
intimidating judges, probation officers and others.
  H.R. 1130 extends the authority for 4 years, expands the coverage to 
include immediate family members, and improves the annual reporting 
requirements on the use of this authority. Although I favor a permanent 
extension of redaction authority, I support a 4-year extension to 
ensure the bill's timely passage by the Senate.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the ranking member of the Courts, 
Internet and Intellectual Property Subcommittee.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1130, the Judicial Disclosure 
Act. The distinguished gentleman from Michigan and the distinguished 
gentleman

[[Page 7103]]

from Texas, Chairman Conyers and Ranking Member Smith, should be 
recognized for their leadership and efforts to shepherd this bipartisan 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, this is commonsense legislation that was unanimously 
approved by the House Judiciary Committee. It reauthorizes the Judicial 
Conference to redact certain personal and financial information that 
judges and judicial officers are required by the Ethics in Government 
Act to publicly disclose each year.
  The authority was originally granted in 1998 and was subsequently 
renewed, but expired on December 31, 2005. This legislation extends the 
authority until 2009.
  Under H.R. 1130, Mr. Speaker, Federal judges and judicial officers 
are still required to submit information required by the Ethics in 
Government Act. The Judicial Conference would be permitted to redact 
personal and sensitive information from public disclosure to protect 
the safety of our judges, judicial officers and their families. 
Examples of the information that may be redacted include where they 
reside, where their spouses work or where their children attend school.
  The Judicial Conference reported in 2005 that 3,942 Federal judiciary 
employees filed financial disclosure reports. Only 177 reports were 
partially redacted prior to release. Four redacted reports were based 
on specific threats, and another 137 reports were redacted based on 
general threats. We know these threats are real, and it only makes 
common sense to ensure that we do not needlessly expose personal and 
sensitive information of the judiciary's top officers.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to support H.R. 1130, and hope that the 
other body will provide for its expeditious consideration.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think this bill strikes the proper balance between 
protecting judges, their staffs and their families, and balancing that 
with the public's right to know. With that, I urge its adoption by this 
House.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, 
which will help protect our Nation's judges against those who may want 
to harm them, or who may threaten to harm them in efforts to influence 
outcomes of cases.
  Until recently, when a judge or court official needed to submit a 
financial disclosure report, personal information about that individual 
could be redacted to prevent those who may intend harm from obtaining 
such information as the individual's home address.
  Unfortunately, this redaction authority expired at the end of 2005. A 
recent incident in which a convicted felon requested the financial 
disclosure records of a judicial officer and those records contained 
such items as the work address of the officer's wife--highlights the 
need to reauthorize the authority to redact this type of personal 
information.
  H.R. 1130, the judicial disclosure responsibility act, would amend 
the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to extend through 2009 the 
authority of the judicial conference to redact certain personal 
information from financial disclosure reports filed by judges. In 
addition, the bill would restrict disclosure of personal information 
about family members of judges when that disclosure might endanger 
them, in order to protect such information as the school location of a 
judge's children, the address of the workplace of a judge's spouse, and 
the like.
  This narrowly tailored legislation will protect those that protect 
us--and I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 1130, 
the ``Judicial Disclosure Responsibility Act,'' because it extends 
until December 31, 2009, the authority conferred by the Congress on the 
Judicial Conference to redact personal and sensitive information from 
the published financial disclosure reports of judges and judiciary 
employees who have been threatened or otherwise have particular 
security risks.
  Mr. Speaker, as I stated, H.R. 1130 would temporarily extend the 
authority of the Judicial Conference to withhold from disclosure 
certain personal and sensitive information of judges and judicial 
employees. In addition, the bill expressly provides that concern for 
the safety of a judge's family as well as that of the judge is 
sufficient grounds to exercise the authority given. The bill, however, 
requires the Judicial Conference to provide detailed reports regarding 
such redactions to Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, the financial disclosure requirements were imposed by 
Congress in 1978 in response to the constitutional issues surrounding 
the Watergate crisis and the resignation of President Richard M. Nixon. 
The Ethics in Government Act was passed in 1978 and promotes ethics and 
openness in government by establishing rules of conduct for federal 
employees to reduce corruption and prevent the improper use of 
knowledge gained while employed by the government, and more broadly to 
prevent the appearance of impropriety.
  The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (``Act'') applies to all 
branches of government, including the federal judiciary. Persons 
covered by the Act are required to disclose personal and financial 
information each year, including the source and amount of income, other 
than that earned as employees of the United States government received 
during the preceding calendar year. They must also disclose the source, 
description, and value of gifts for which the aggregate value is more 
than a certain minimal amount received from any source other than a 
relative; the source and description of reimbursements; the identity 
and category of value of property interests; the identity and category 
value of liabilities owed to creditors other than certain immediate 
family members; and other financial information. Under the Act, these 
reports are made public.
  Among the types of sensitive personal information that might be 
disclosed in these reports are personal residences, the workplace of 
spouses, the name and location of a child's school; and an employee's 
vacation home.
  In 1998, 20 years after the enactment of the Ethics in Government 
Act, the potential of these types of disclosures to place individual 
judges at serious risk of personal harm had become manifest. In 1979, 
U.S. District Court Judge John Wood, Jr., was fatally shot outside of 
his home by assassin Charles Harrelson. The murder contract had been 
placed by Texas drug lord Jamiel Chagra, who was awaiting trial before 
the judge.
  In 1988, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Daronco was murdered at 
his house by Charles Koster, the father of the unsuccessful plaintiff 
in a discrimination case. The following year, U.S. Circuit Court Judge 
Richard Vance was killed by a letter bomb sent to his home. The letter 
bomb was attributed to racist animus against Judge Vance for writing an 
opinion reversing a lower-court ruling to lift an 18-year desegregation 
order from the Duval County, Florida schools.
  In light of these and other tragedies, Congress responded by adding a 
new subsection to the Ethics in Government Act temporarily authorizing 
the Judicial Conference to redact information from judges' financial 
disclosure reports under certain circumstances. Under that subsection, 
a report may be redacted ``(i) to the extent necessary to protect the 
individual who filed the report; and (ii) for as long as the danger to 
such individual exists.'' The Act further charged the U.S. Judicial 
Conference, in consultation which the Department of Justice, with the 
task of submitting to the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary 
an annual report documenting redactions.
  In 2001, the House of Representatives approved a bill striking the 
sunset clause and making the redaction authority permanent but the 
Senate Governmental Affairs Committee did not concur. The Senate was 
concerned that such authority could hamper the effectiveness of the 
judicial confirmation and oversight process by unwarranted reliance on 
the redaction authority to avoid revealing stock holdings and other 
financial assets, and in some cases, the complete withholding of all 
financial information contrary to the intent of the statute. 
Ultimately, Senate recommended extending the redaction authority for 4 
more years, until December 31, 2005. This authority has now expired and 
necessitates the extension provided by H.R. 1130.
  Mr. Speaker, the Judiciary Committee considered and properly rejected 
permanently granting this authority to the Judicial Conference because 
of the legitimate concern that such authority could be abused in such a 
way as to withhold information that properly should be disclosed. A 
temporary 4-year extension, on the other hand, would effectively allow 
for a more in-depth investigation of areas of concern before Congress 
must decide whether to make the authority permanent. I believe this is 
the most prudent way to proceed.
  Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 1130 because it preserves an important 
means of protecting the safety of those who work in the federal 
judiciary. Particularly in this age of the global war on terror, the 
danger faced by federal judges, judicial officers, and court personnel 
is real, as illustrated by the three murders noted above. The recent 
and tragic murder of U.S.

[[Page 7104]]

District Court Judge Joan Humphrey Letkow's husband and mother reminds 
us that the danger has not abated.
  For all of these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 1130 and urge 
by colleagues to do likewise.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1130.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this question will 
be postponed.

                          ____________________