[House Report 112-189]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


112th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    112-189

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



 
    EXTENSION OF REDACTION AUTHORITY CONCERNING SENSITIVE SECURITY 
                              INFORMATION

                                _______
                                

 July 29, 2011.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

       Mr. Smith of Texas, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 1059]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred 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, 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.........................................................     3
Committee Consideration..........................................     3
Committee Votes..................................................     3
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     3
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................     3
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................     3
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................     4
Advisory on Earmarks.............................................     4
Section-by-Section Analysis......................................     4
Agency Views.....................................................     5
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............     6

                          Purpose and Summary

    Judges and certain other judicial branch employees are 
required to file annual financial disclosure reports under the 
Ethics in Government Act. Given the security risks that 
confront members of the Judiciary, however, the Judicial 
Conference is authorized to redact sensitive information from 
these reports that could otherwise be used to compromise the 
safety of the filers or their families. The statutory authority 
of the Judicial Conference to redact this information expires 
on December 31, 2011. H.R. 1059 permanently extends the 
authority beyond this date.

                Background and Need for the Legislation

    Under the Ethics in Government Act\1\, judges and other 
high-level judicial branch officials must file annual financial 
disclosure reports, the purpose of which is to increase public 
confidence in government officials and better enable the public 
to judge the performance of those officials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\5 U.S.C. app. 105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, recognizing the nature of the judicial function 
and the increased security risks it entails, Congress enacted 
section 7 of the ``Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act 
of 1998,''\2\ which allowed 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. 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. Individuals targeting judges for harassment have also 
been known to file false liens on property owned by judges and 
their families. Harassers could use judicial financial 
disclosure reports to more easily identify such property.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\Pub. L. No. 105-318.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Judicial Conference delegated to its Committee on 
Financial Disclosure (``the Committee'') 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 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. Under 
the regulations promulgated by the Judicial Conference, no 
redaction will be granted in the absence of a clear nexus 
between a security risk and the information for which redaction 
is sought.
    Since redactions were approved in only a limited number of 
cases where judges or their family members were endangered by 
the release of the information, the Committee recommended that 
the sunset date of December 31, 2001, in section 7 be repealed. 
Due to Senate opposition to a permanent extension, however, 
Public Law 107-126 extended the authorization for an additional 
4 years, through December 31, 2005.
    The 110th Congress repeated the exercise twice by enacting 
Public Law 110-24, which extended the authority to December 31, 
2009; and Section 104 of Public Law 110-177, which extends the 
authority through December 31, 2011. If not extended again, the 
authority lapses after this date.
    Finally, between 2007 and 2010, the Judicial Conference 
notes that out of 17,658 filings, 750 (or 4.2%) resulted in 
redaction requests. Of those, 645 (or 86%) were granted in 
full, and another 70 (or 9.3%) were partially granted. The 
majority of the redactions concern information that reveals the 
presence of the filer or members of the filer's family at 
unsecured locations or reveals the location of the filer's 
residence.

                                Hearings

    The Committee on the Judiciary held no hearings on H.R. 
1059.

                        Committee Consideration

    On July 20, 2011, the Committee met in open session and 
ordered the bill H.R. 1059 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. 1059.

                      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. 1059, 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, July 27, 2011.
Hon. Lamar Smith, 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. 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, and for other purposes.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Martin von 
Gnechten, who can be reached at 226-2860.
            Sincerely,
                                      Douglas W. Elmendorf,
                                                  Director.

Enclosure

cc:
        Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
        Ranking Member
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, 
        and for other purposes.
    H.R. 1059 would repeal the sunset provision 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. Under current law, 
those provisions expire at the end of calendar year 2011. Based 
on information from the Administrative Office of the United 
States Courts, 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; 
therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.
    H.R. 1059 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.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Martin von 
Gnechten, who can be reached at 226-2860. This estimate was 
approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy 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. 
1059 enhances the security of Federal judges and other judicial 
employees by extending the authority of the U.S. Judicial 
Conference to redact sensitive information from their financial 
disclosure reports.

                          Advisory on Earmarks

    In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, H.R. 1059 does not contain any 
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff 
benefits as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of Rule XXI.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

    The following discussion describes the bill as reported by 
the Committee.
    Sec. 1. Extension of Redaction Authority Concerning 
Sensitive Security Information. Section 1 corrects a 
misspelling set forth in the redaction portion of the Ethics in 
Government Act (``Marshals'' in lieu of ``Marshall''). Section 
1 also strikes the sunset provision (December 31, 2011) that 
applies to the redaction authority, thereby making it 
permanent.

                              Agency Views


                               __________

         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]   Marshals Service, that revealing personal 
and sensitive information could endanger that individual or a 
family member of that individual.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(E) This paragraph shall expire on December 31, 2011, and 
apply to filings through calendar year 2011.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                                  
