[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 13341-13342]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    EXTENSION OF REDACTION AUTHORITY CONCERNING SENSITIVE SECURITY 
                              INFORMATION

  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H.R. 1059) 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.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 1059

       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) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 
     (5 U.S.C. App.) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``Marshall'' and 
     inserting ``Marshals''; and
       (2) by striking subparagraph (E).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Coble) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.


                             General Leave

  Mr. COBLE. 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 materials on H.R. 1059 currently under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1620

  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I support H.R. 1059 and again thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for having sponsored it. I also thank the 
distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) and the 
distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson) for having served as 
cosponsors.
  H.R. 1059 promotes an important goal--providing security for Federal 
judges. Under the Ethics in Government Act, judges and other high-level 
judicial branch officials must file annual financial disclosure 
reports. This requirement increases public confidence in government 
officials and better enables the public to judge the performance of 
those officials.
  However, recognizing the nature of the judicial function and the 
increased security risks it entails, Congress also enacted legislation 
that allowed the Judicial Conference to redact statutorily required 
information in a financial disclosure report where release of such 
information could possibly endanger the filer or his or her family.
  Those seeking to harm or intimidate Federal judges might use a 
disclosure form to identify where someone's spouse or child works or 
goes to school on a regular basis. However, individuals targeting 
judges for harassment have also been known to file false liens on 
properties owned by judges and their families. Harassers could use 
judicial financial disclosure reports to more easily identify such 
property.
  The Judicial Conference delegated to its Committee on Financial 
Disclosure the responsibility for implementing the financial disclosure 
requirements for judges and judicial employees under the Ethics in 
Government Act. The committee monitors the release of financial 
disclosure reports to ensure compliance with the statute. In 
consultation with the U.S. Marshals Service, the committee also reviews 
and approves or disapproves any request for the redaction of 
statutorily mandated information where the filer believes the release 
of the information could endanger the filer or his or her family.
  Under the Judicial Conference's regulations, no redaction will be 
granted without a clear nexus between a security risk and the 
information for which a redaction is sought. The law has worked well 
through the years and has been reauthorized twice since 2001. But it 
expires at the end of this calendar year if we fail to act--an outcome 
that is unacceptable. Last year, the Marshals Service investigated and 
analyzed almost 1,400 threats and inappropriate communications to 
judicial officials--nearly three times as many threats recorded in 
2003. There were more than 3,900 ``incidents'' and arrests at U.S. 
court facilities in 2010.
  Financial disclosures are an important part of maintaining an open 
and transparent government, Mr. Speaker. But government transparency 
should not come at the cost of personal security for government 
officials. Judges and other judicial employees perform important work 
that is integral to our democratic system of government. In order to 
preserve the integrity of our democracy, we must protect the integrity 
of our courts. And that means ensuring the security of judges and other 
judicial employees from intimidation and threats.
  In conclusion, there's no evidence that the law is being abused. I 
support H.R. 1059 and urge my colleagues to extend the redaction 
authority permanently.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chairman of Judiciary, Lamar 
Smith, as well as the subcommittee chair, Mr. Coble, for swiftly moving 
this through the Judiciary Committee. I think it has been explained 
that the redaction of sensitive information for the benefit of members 
of the judiciary is obvious and important. I am hoping that with my 
consultation with the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee we 
would be able to make the permanent feature that Howard Coble has 
discussed a permanent one and a part of the law as it now exists.
  H.R. 1059 gives the Judicial Conference of the United States 
permanent authority to redact certain sensitive information from public 
financial disclosures required by the Ethics in Government Act.
  This important legislation, which was ordered reported from the 
Judiciary Committee

[[Page 13342]]

by voice vote, deserves the support of the entire House for a number of 
reasons.
  First, H.R. 1059 properly balances the purposes of the Ethics in 
Government Act with the need to ensure the security of judges, judicial 
employees, and their families.
  The Ethics in Government Act serves to promote ethics and openness in 
the federal government by reducing the risk of corruption or preventing 
the appearance of impropriety.
  The Act accomplishes this objective by requiring the public 
disclosure of certain information, including identification of personal 
financial information, non-governmental sources of income, gifts, 
property interests, and liabilities.
  Unfortunately, the required disclosures can also include critical 
information about the filer's residence, a spouse's workplace, a 
child's workplace, or a vacation home. This information has the 
potential to place individual judges, employees, and their families at 
risk. The bill's redaction authority is critical to ensuring that this 
information does not get into the wrong hands.
  Second, the risk to the personal safety of federal judges and court 
employees from disclosure of personal location information is real.
  But, without further action, this important protection for judicial 
security will expire at the end of this year.
  And, finally, making this redaction authority permanent will not lead 
to abuse of such authority.
  The federal judiciary has utilized such authority very sparingly.
  For instance, there were 17,658 financial disclosure filings between 
2007 and 2010. Of those, there were 750 instances where filers 
requested redaction. Of that number, 645 redaction requests were 
granted in full, while 70 requests were granted in part, and 35 
requests were denied.
  Thus, in only 4.2 percent of filings was redaction even requested, 
and not all of those were granted.
  It's clear, based on these statistics, that the federal judiciary 
exercises considerable restraint in applying its redaction authority in 
recognition of the need for public disclosure.
  The Government Accountability Office similarly reported in 2004 that 
the judiciary's exercise of its redaction authority provided a measure 
of security to at-risk individuals, while not substantially interfering 
with dissemination of information to the public.
  Congress first recognized the value of granting redaction authority 
to the judiciary back in 1998. It has repeatedly reauthorized redaction 
authority on a temporary basis since then, except for a two-year lapse 
in 2006 and 2007.
  In order to avoid future lapses, this redaction authority should be 
made permanent.
  In closing, I would like to thank Chairman Lamar Smith and 
Subcommittee Chair Howard Coble for moving this important legislation 
through the committee and swiftly to the floor. I urge my colleagues to 
support this legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 1059, a bill to 
protect the safety of judges by extending the authority of the Judicial 
Conference to redact sensitive information contained in their financial 
disclosure reports. This legislation will provide a vital safety 
measure for judges who have dedicated their lives to serving the 
public.
  As a senior Member of both the Judiciary and Homeland Security 
committees, I have worked tirelessly to ensure the safety and integrity 
of those who are members of the judiciary. The Ethics in Government Act 
requires judges, like Members of Congress and other high ranking public 
officials to file annual financial disclosure reports. This requirement 
serves to bolster the confidence of the public in the professional 
integrity of individuals who serve their community.
  Although the intent of the Act is to bolster public confidence in the 
judiciary it has an unintended consequence inherent in full public 
disclosure. Full financial disclosure impacts the personal safety of 
judges, particularly the safety of judges who sentence criminals. Some 
of the information contained in financial disclosure reports could 
reveal information which pertains to the schools, workplaces, and homes 
of judges and their families. This type of information provides easy 
access to personal information that could be used by an individual to 
intimidate or harm a judge or her family. In order to mitigate these 
risks, section 7 of the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 
1998 allows the Judicial Conference to redact information found in 
financial disclosures that would place a judge or their family at risk.
  This legislation does not exempt judicial employees and judges from 
filing financial disclosures. The Judicial Conference's Committee on 
Financial Disclosures works in coordination with the U.S. Marshals 
Service to determine the merit of requests for redaction. The Judicial 
conference reports that between 2007 and 2010, of the 17,658 financial 
disclosure reports filed, there were only 750 redaction requests, or 
4.2 percent of the reports filed. There were 645 redaction requests 
that were fully granted, and 70 that were partially granted.
  This legislation protects judges and their families from those that 
may seek to harm or intimidate the judge. The majority of redaction 
requests that were approved contained information that indicated the 
whereabouts of the filer's family on a regular basis, or the residence 
at which the filing party lived. H.R. 1059 does not exempt anyone from 
fulfilling their requirement to file a financial disclosure.
  In the 110th Congress, my colleagues and I extended the authorizing 
section of the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act twice to 
ensure continued protection of our judges and their families. The last 
extension will expire on December 31, 2011, leaving thousands of 
dedicated public servants and their loved ones vulnerable to harm or 
harassment.
  I applaud my friend from Michigan, the Ranking Member of the 
Judiciary Committee for introducing this important legislation to 
protect judges and judicial employees. I urge my colleagues to lend 
their support to the bill.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1059.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. CONYERS. 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, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________