[House Report 110-59]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



110th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                     110-59

======================================================================



 
                 JUDICIAL DISCLOSURE RESPONSIBILITY ACT

                                _______
                                

 March 20, 2007.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

    Mr. Conyers, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 1130]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred 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, having considered the 
same, reports favorably thereon without amendment and 
recommends that the bill do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Purpose and Summary..............................................     2
Background and Need for the Legislation..........................     2
Committee Consideration..........................................     4
Committee Votes..................................................     4
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     4
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................     4
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................     4
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................     5
Constitutional Authority Statement...............................     5
Advisory on Earmarks.............................................     5
Section-by-Section Analysis......................................     5
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............     6
Judiciary Conference Views.......................................     7
Additional Views.................................................    11

                          Purpose and Summary

    H.R. 1130 would revive and extend until December 31, 2009 a 
provision permitting the Judicial Conference to redact from 
financial disclosure reports selected information that could 
reveal residences and other unsecured locations frequented by a 
judge or judicial employee, thereby exposing them to being 
targeted for physical harm. The bill would also add safety of 
family members to the ambit of concern warranting redaction.

                Background and Need for the Legislation

    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 to 
promote ethics and openness in government. Generally, the act 
established a certain rule 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 applies to all 
branches of government from the President, Vice President, and 
all GS-16 or above employees, Members of Congress and certain 
congressional employees, and Federal judges and certain 
employees of the judiciary. Specifically, those 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.
    Examples of sensitive personal information that can be 
disclosed in these reports include:
    Residence--Unsecured location may be disclosed by the 
listing of position as a condominium officer.
    Spouse's workplace--Unsecured location may be disclosed by 
source of spouse's income.
    Child's school--Unsecured location may be disclosed by name 
of school listed as a creditor for tuition.
    Vacation home--Unsecured location may be disclosed by 
listing of property occasionally rented to others.
    In 1998, Congress recognized the potential for these 
disclosures to place individual judges at risk, and responded 
with legislation adding a new subsection to the Ethics in 
Government Act authorizing the Judicial Branch to redact 
information from 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 with the Department of Justice, 
with the task of submitting to the House and Senate Committees 
on the Judiciary an annual report documenting redactions.
    When originally passed, the provision contained a sunset 
clause whereby it would expire in December 2001, unless 
extended by Congress. In 2001, after the House of 
Representatives approved a bill striking the sunset clause and 
making the redaction authority permanent, the Senate 
Governmental Affairs Committee (``GAC'') considered whether to 
make the authority permanent. GAC members raised several 
concerns about the bill, including the use of redaction 
authority to avoid revealing stock holdings and other financial 
assets. Additionally, GAC observed that complete withholding of 
financial disclosure had sometimes occurred, noting that such 
withholding seemed contrary to the intent of the statute. 
Ultimately, GAC recommended extending the redaction authority 
for four more years, until December 31, 2005. This extension 
would effectively allow for a more in-depth investigation of 
areas of concern before Congress decided whether to ultimately 
make the authority permanent. The extension was passed, and the 
authority expired in December 2005.
    This legislation preserves an important means of protecting 
the safety of those who work in the Federal Judicial Branch. In 
a June 2000 address to the American Law Institute Annual 
Meeting, the late Chief Justice Rehnquist cited several 
examples of trial judges who were targets of violence and 
specifically referred to three judges who had been murdered at 
their homes.

         LIn 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.

         LIn 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.

         LIn 1989, U.S. Circuit Court Judge Richard 
        Vance was killed by a letter bomb sent to his home. The 
        letterbomb 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.

    More recently, the tragic murders of U.S. District Court 
Judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow's husband and mother have raised 
even more concerns about safety of the judiciary.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Dennis Cauchon, Previously threatened, judge discovers her 
family slain, USA Today, Mar. 3, 2005, at A1. Threats were previously 
made on Judge Lefkow's life. In April 2004, Mathew Hale was convicted 
of conspiring to have his bodyguard kill Judge Lefkow in retaliation 
for rules she made against him in a copyright case involving the name 
of his group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In its report to the Committee on Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs, the Judicial Conference reported that of 
the 3,942 Federal judges and judiciary employees required to 
file financial disclosure reports in 2004, 177 reports were 
partially redacted before release. In four instances, the 
approved redaction requests were based on specific threats such 
as high-threat trials, ongoing protective investigations, 
identity theft, and continuing threats from criminal defendants 
and disgruntled civil litigants. In 137 instances, the approved 
redaction requests were based on general threats and involved 
redacting a family member's unsecured place of work, an 
unsecured location frequented by a judge, or the residence of a 
judge, judicial employee, or family member.

                        Committee Consideration

    On February 28, 2007, the Committee met in open session and 
ordered the bill H.R. 1130 favorably reported without 
amendment, by voice vote, a quorum being present.

                            Committee Votes

    In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that there 
were no recorded votes during the Committee's consideration of 
H.R. 1130.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee advises 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.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives 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 the bill, H.R. 1130, 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, March 8, 2007.
Hon. John Conyers, 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. 1130, the Judicial 
Disclosure Responsibility Act.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Daniel 
Hoople, who can be reached at 226-2860.
            Sincerely,
                                           Peter R. Orszag,
                                                  Director.

Enclosure

cc:
        Honorable Lamar S. Smith.
        Ranking Member
H.R. 1130--Judicial Disclosure Responsibility Act.
    CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1130 would have no 
significant impact on the Federal budget. H.R. 1130 contains no 
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would not affect the budgets 
of State, local, or tribal governments.
    H.R. 1130 would renew provisions of the Ethics in 
Government Act of 1978 involving the financial disclosure 
requirements for judges. The bill would prevent public 
disclosure of certain information if it is determined that such 
disclosure could endanger the individual. Those provisions 
(which expired in 2005) would be extended through 2009. The 
bill also would expand those protections to include information 
that could endanger a family member. Under the bill, the 
Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) would 
be required to submit an annual report to the Congress 
specifying how often this authority is exercised and in what 
manner. Based on information from AOUSC, CBO estimates that 
implementing those provisions would have no significant impact 
on the Federal budget. Enacting the bill would not affect 
direct spending or revenues.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Daniel Hoople, 
who can be reached at 226-2860. This estimate was approved by 
Robert A. Sunshine, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R. 
1130 will assist in the protection of judicial officers and 
judicial employees and a family members of that judicial 
employee.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for 
this legislation in article 1, section 8 of the Constitution.

                          Advisory on Earmarks

    In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, H.R. 1130 does not contain any 
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff 
benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of Rule XXI.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

    The following discussion describes the bill as reported by 
the Committee.
    Sec. 1. Short title. This section sets forth the short 
title of the bill as the ``Judicial Disclosure Responsibility 
Act.''
    Sec. 2. Protection of Family Members. This section amends 
the Ethic in Government Act of 1978 to include family members 
of the individual covered by the Act.
    Sec. 3. Financial Disclosure Reports. This section would 
extend the Judicial Conference authority to redact to 2009. The 
section would also require that the report to Congress include 
1) the nature or type of information redacted; 2) what steps 
are in place to ensure that sufficient information is available 
to litigants to determine if there is a conflict of interest; 
3) principles used to guide the implementation of the redaction 
authority; and 4) public complaints received relating to any 
redactions.

         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, new 
matter is printed in italics, existing law in which no change 
is proposed is shown in roman):

                    ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT ACT OF 1978



           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
TITLE I--FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL PERSONNEL

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                CUSTODY OF AND PUBLIC ACCESS TO REPORTS

Sec. 105. (a) * * *
  (b)(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (3)(A) This section does not require the immediate and 
unconditional availability of reports filed by an individual 
described in section 109(8) or 109(10) of this Act if a finding 
is made by the Judicial Conference, in consultation with United 
States Marshall Service, that revealing personal and sensitive 
information could endanger that individual or a family member 
of that individual.
  (B) A report may be redacted pursuant to this paragraph 
only--
          (i) to the extent necessary to protect the individual 
        who filed the report or a family member of that 
        individual; and

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (C) The Administrative Office of the United States Courts 
shall submit to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of 
Representatives and of the Senate an annual report with respect 
to the operation of this paragraph including--
          (i) * * *
          (ii) the total number of individuals whose reports 
        have been redacted pursuant to this paragraph; [and]
          (iii) the types of threats against individuals whose 
        reports are redacted, if appropriate[.];
          (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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (E) This paragraph shall expire on December 31, [2005] 2009, 
and apply to filings through calendar year [2005] 2009.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                       Judicial Conference Views


                            Additional Views

    H.R. 1130, the Judicial Disclosure Responsibility Act of 
2007, amends the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to restrict 
disclosure of personal information about family members of 
judges, and it provides for a four-year extension of the 
authority of the Judicial Conference to redact certain personal 
information of judges from financial disclosure reports.
    At the February 28, 2007, markup on this legislation, I 
offered an amendment to make a simple and straight-forward 
change to H.R. 1130. The Judicial Disclosure Responsibility Act 
contains a four-year extension of redaction authority. My 
amendment provides for a permanent extension to this authority.
    Nearly every Member on this Committee is on record as 
supporting a permanent extension. In the 109th Congress, H.R. 
1751, the Court Security Improvement Act, contained the 
permanent extension and it passed the House by a vote of 375-
45. All but a handful of Members on the House Judiciary 
Committee voted in favor of the Court Security Improvement Act. 
I would dare say that none of the five current Committee 
Members who opposed that legislation did so because it would 
have permanently extended the authority 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.
    Since the Senate failed to consider the Court Security 
Improvement Act, I introduced this crucial judicial security 
measure as a stand-alone bill which passed the House by voice 
vote. During debate on that bill a number of my friends on the 
other side of the aisle spoke favorably about what a great bill 
it was.
    Although I am disappointed that my amendment was not 
adopted during markup, I am encouraged that Chairman Conyers 
noted we would attempt to make the protections permanent when 
considering court security legislation later this year.
    During my tenure as Chairman of this Committee, I did 
battle with the other body on many occasions. Several times we 
reported legislation out of this Committee that passed the 
House with little or no dissent, only to see those bills die. I 
must warn my good friend, Chairman Conyers, to be careful when 
depending on ``pretty good assurances'' from the other body.
    Making redaction authority permanent is the right thing to 
do. Members of this Committee can, in Chairman Conyers words, 
``trust me,'' that I will continue to push for making this 
authority permanent when we consider a court security bill 
later this year.

                                   F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.

                                  
