[House Report 107-239]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
107th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 107-239
======================================================================
TO MAKE PERMANENT THE AUTHORITY TO REDACT FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE
STATEMENTS OF JUDICIAL EMPLOYEES AND JUDICIAL OFFICERS
_______
October 12, 2001.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Sensenbrenner, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 2336]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 2336) to make permanent the authority to redact
financial disclosure statements of judicial employees and
judicial officers, having considered the same, reports
favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that the
bill do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 1
Background and Need for the Legislation.......................... 2
Hearings......................................................... 2
Committee Consideration.......................................... 3
Vote of the Committee............................................ 3
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 3
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 3
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 3
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................ 3
Constitutional Authority Statement............................... 4
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion....................... 4
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 4
Markup Transcript................................................ 5
Purpose and Summary
The purpose of H.R. 2336 is to make permanent the authority
of the Judicial Conference of the United States to redact
financial disclosure statements of judicial employees and
judicial officers where the release of the information could
endanger the filer or his or her family.
Background and Need for the Legislation
Under the Ethics in Government Act, judges and other high-
level judicial branch officials must file annual financial
disclosure reports. However, recognizing the nature of the
judicial function and the increased security risks it entails,
the 105th Congress enacted section 7 of 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 the
information could endanger the filer or his or her family. This
provision will sunset on December 31, 2001, in the absence of a
legislative extension.
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. The Committee 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 and his family.
The Judicial Conference Committee on Financial Disclosure
recently submitted a report on section 7. The Committee
monitors the release of financial disclosure reports to ensure
compliance with the statute, reviews redaction requests, and
approves or disapproves any request for the redaction of
statutorily mandated information where the release of the
information could endanger a filer. In 2000, the Committee
noted that: (1) 13 financial disclosure reports were wholly
redacted because the judge was under a specific, active
security threat; (2) 140 reports were partially redacted (59 of
which were based on specific threats; the other 81 due to
general threats and the potential risk of disclosure of a
family member's unsecured workplace or a residence of a judge
or a judge's family); and (3) a total of 218 financial
disclosure reports, which includes reports from previous years,
were partially redacted.
The purpose of the annual financial disclosure reports
required by the Ethics in Government Act is to increase public
confidence in government officials and better enable the public
to judge the performance of those officials. The Committee
recommended that the sunset of section 7 be repealed because
redactions were approved in only a limited number of cases
where judges or their family members were endangered by the
release of the information. H.R. 2336, therefore, achieves the
objectives of providing public access to such information
without compromising the safety of Federal judges and their
families.
Hearings
There were no hearings held on H.R. 2336.
Committee Consideration
On October 3, 2001, the Committee met in open session and
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 2336, by voice vote, a
quorum being present.
Vote of the Committee
There were no recorded votes on H.R. 2336.
Committee Oversight Findings
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the
descriptive portions of this report.
Performance Goals and Objectives
H.R. 2336 does not authorize funding. Therefore, clause
3(c) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives
is inapplicable. The purpose of H.R. 2336 is to make permanent
the authority of the Judicial Conference of the United States
to redact financial disclosure statements of judicial employees
and judicial officers where the release of the information
could endanger the filer or his or her family.
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures
Clause 3(c)(2) of House rule XIII is inapplicable because
this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or
increased tax expenditures.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with
respect to H.R. 2336, the following estimate and comparison
prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office
under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, October 12, 2001.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2336, a bill to
make permanent the authority to redact financial disclosure
statements of judicial employees and judicial officers.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Lanette J.
Walker, who can be reached at 226-2860.
Sincerely,
Dan L. Crippen, Director.
Enclosure
cc:
Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Ranking Member
H.R. 2336--A bill to make permanent the authority to redact financial
disclosure statements of judicial employees and judicial
officers.
H.R. 2336 would repeal the sunset provision in the Ethics
in Government Act of 1978 relating to the authority of certain
judicial employees and judicial officers to revise their
financial disclosure statements. CBO estimates that
implementing H.R. 2336 would have no significant impact on the
Federal budget. The bill would not affect direct spending or
receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.
H.R. 2336 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Lanette J.
Walker, who can be reached at 226-2860. This estimate was
approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for
Budget Analysis.
Constitutional Authority Statement
Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of the rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority
for this legislation in Article III, section 1 of the
Constitution.
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion
Section 1. Repeal of Sunset Provision
Section 1 of H.R. 2336 would repeal section 105(b)(3)(E) of
the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.). This
section will make permanent the authority to redact financial
disclosure statements of judicial employees and judicial
officers.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets and
existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):
SECTION 105 OF THE ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT ACT OF 1978
CUSTODY OF AND PUBLIC ACCESS TO REPORTS
Sec. 105. (a) * * *
(b)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3)(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(E) This paragraph shall expire on December 31, 2001, and
apply to filings through calendar year 2001.]
* * * * * * *
Markup Transcript
BUSINESS MEETING
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2001
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:00 p.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James
Sensenbrenner, Jr. [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Committee will be in order. A working quorum is present.
Pursuant to notice, I now call up the bill, H.R. 2336, to make
permanent the authority to redact financial disclosure
statements of judicial employees and judicial officers for
purposes of markup and move its favorable recommendation to the
House. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read
and open for amendment at any point. The Chair recognizes the
gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble, to briefly explain
the bill.
[The bill, H.R. 2336, follows:]
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill, Mr.
Chairman, came directly to the full Committee. As you know, it
did not clear through Subcommittee. So if I may, I think I can
read this, Mr. Chairman, in a couple minutes. Would this be in
order?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Surely. The gentleman is
recognized.
Mr. Coble. This bill will make permanent the authority to
redact financial disclosure statements of judicial employees
and judicial officers. Under the Ethics of Government Act,
judges and other high-level judicial branch officials must file
annual financial disclosure reports. However, due to the nature
of the judicial function of the increased security risks it
entails, section 7 of the Identity Theft and Assumption
Deterrence Act of 1998 allows the Judicial Conference to redact
statutorily required information in a financial disclosure
report when release of the information could endanger the filer
or his or her family.
This provision will sunset on December 31, 2001, in the
absence of further legislative action. This is why it is so
important, Mr. Chairman, for us to consider this today because
at the sunset--if we don't resolve it prior to the sunset
effective date, then the redaction, of course, takes full force
and they will have to fully disclose. We are not talking about
many judges that are involved, but those who are involved who
have security risks imposing. I think we do need to address
this. As far as I know, Mr. Chairman, there is no opposition,
and I move its passage.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Coble follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Howard Coble, a Representative in
Congress From the State of North Carolina
Thank you Mr. Chairman. H.R. 2336 will make permanent the authority
to redact financial disclosure statements of judicial employees and
judicial officers.
Under the Ethics in Government Act, judges and other high-level
judicial branch officials must file annual financial disclosure
reports. However, due to the nature of the judicial function and the
increased security risks it entails, section 7 of the ``Identity Theft
and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998'' allows the Judicial Conference
to redact statutorily required information in a financial disclosure
report where the release of the information could endanger the filer or
his or her family. This provision will sunset on December 31, 2001, in
the absence of further legislative action.
The Judicial Conference Committee on Financial Disclosure recently
submitted a report on section 7. The Committee monitors the release of
financial disclosure reports to ensure compliance with the statute,
reviews redaction requests, and approves or disapproves any request for
the redaction of statutorily mandated information where the release of
the information could endanger a filer. In 2000, the Committee noted
that: (1) 13 financial disclosure reports were wholly redacted because
the judge was under a specific, active security threat; (2) 140 judges'
reports were partially redacted (59 of which were based on specific
threats; the other 81 due to general threats and the potential risk of
disclosure of a family member's unsecured workplace or a residence of a
judge or a judge's family); and (3) a total of 218 financial disclosure
reports, which includes reports from previous years, were partially
redacted.
The purpose of the annual financial disclosure reports required by
the Ethics in Government Act is to increase public confidence in
government officials and better enable the public to judge the
performance of those officials. However, federal judges should be
allowed to redact certain information from financial disclosures when
they or a family member is threatened. Importantly, the practice has
never interfered with the release of critical information to the
public.
H.R. 2336 will eliminate the sunset in section 7 and permit the
Judicial Conference to permanently redact information in financial
disclosure reports where the information could endanger the filer or
his or her family. H.R. 2336 is a good bill. It enjoys bipartisan
support and there is no known opposition. I urge my colleagues to
support H.R. 2336.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman yields back the balance
of his time. Are there any amendments? Without any objection,
any additional statements will appear in the record at this
time, there being no amendments.
The report and quorum is now present. Without objection,
the previous question is ordered. Further proceedings on the
bill will be postponed.
Now the question--the report and quorum is now present, and
the Committee will now return to the pending unfinished
business upon which the previous question was ordered on H.R.
2336.
Those in favor of the motion to report the bill favorably
will signify by saying aye. Opposed no. The ayes appear to have
it. The ayes have it. The bill is favorably reported.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to move to go to
conference pursuant to House rules. Without objection, the
staff is directed to make any technical and conforming changes
and all Members will be given 2 days, as provided by House
rules, in which to submit additional dissenting, supplemental
or minority views.
[Intervening business.]
And the Committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 8:30 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]