To amend the E-Government Act of 2002 with respect to rulemaking authority of the Judicial Conference.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1303, and ask my colleagues to vote for it. H.R. 1303 will address serious concerns expressed by the U.S. courts about the E-Government Act of 2002. I believe the legislation will address these concerns while still serving the worthwhile purposes of the E-Government Act.

In the wee hours of the last day of the 107th Congress, the House and Senate both passed the E-Government Act of 2002 by unanimous consent. The President later signed the act into law as Public Law 107-347.

Section 205 of that legislation required the U.S. courts to establish and maintain Web sites containing a variety of information. Required information includes access to docket information for each case, access to the substance of all written opinions issued by the court, and access to documents filed with the courthouse in electronic form.

The legislation wisely recognized that the public interests in access to court documents and the protection of privacy must be balanced. Many court

documents contain a variety of personal information, including bank account numbers, tax returns, and home addresses. Unrestricted Internet access to all court documents in their entirety might, therefore, seriously compromise the privacy of certain individuals.

In acknowledgment of these serious privacy concerns, section 205 requires the U.S. Supreme Court to prescribe rules ``to protect privacy and security concerns relating to electronic filing of documents and the public availability under this subsection of documents filed electronically.'' The Supreme Court is required to submit its prescribed rules to Congress, and the prescribed rules would be adopted if Congress failed to act to amend or reject them within 6 months.

Section 205 also further dictates the substance of the rules that the U.S. Supreme Court must prescribe. Most relevant to the legislation before us, section 205 requires that the privacy rules adopted by the courts allow parties to file unredacted versions of court documents under seal.

This language addressed Justice Department concerns that the privacy rules could impede the introduction into evidence of information it deemed necessary to prove the elements of certain cases.

Because of the last-minute nature of the E-Government Act, neither the Committee on the Judiciary nor the U.S. Courts had adequate opportunity to review the final text of Section 205 before passage. Having now reviewed and reflected on Section 205, the Committee on the Judiciary had some concerns about the language. It is those concerns that H.R. 1303 addresses today.

In allowing parties to file both redacted and sealed, unredacted sets of court documents, the U.S. courts believe Section 205 creates needless potential for confusion and error. In particular, the Courts assert Section 205 will needlessly complicate the process of making appropriate versions of documents available to juries and to the public, and for certifying appropriate versions of the documents for purposes of appeal.

These concerns have been addressed in the legislation before us today. H.R. 1303 addresses the concerns of the courts, while accomplishing the objectives of the Department of Justice. In fact, H.R. 1303 as adopted by the Committee on the Judiciary represents a negotiated compromise between the Department of Justice and the U.S. courts.

H.R. 1303 requires the courts to prescribe rules that allow parties to file a reference list with the court. This reference list would include both a complete and partially-redacted version of each personal data identifier. The redacted version would be used in lieu of, and be construed to refer to, the complete version in subsequent filings in the case. The list, which would be maintained under seal, would, therefore, serve as a type of key.

This approach resolves the concerns of the courts by eliminating the need to file two versions of a court document. It meets the needs of the Department of Justice by allowing for the filing of unredacted identifiers where necessary to accomplish the elements of a case.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I believe this legislation is a proportionate cure for a previously-overlooked defect in the E- Government Act of 2002. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to support this legislation today.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further request for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1303 which will amend Section 205 of the existing and codified ``E- Government Act.'' The operative language of the bill with the Amendment offered by Representative Howard L. Berman and adopted by the Judiciary Committee will restore order to the electronic infrastructure that serves the federal court system.

The primary goals of the ``E-Government Act,'' namely to (1) improve the ``information management'' of the Federal Government by authorizing upgrades to improve systems management, information technology, and security, and (2) to insure greater citizen access to Federal Government information serve the interest of the public by way of making the government's electronic infrastructure more ``user friendly and useful overall. However, in light of the import of the existing codified language of the relevant provision, Section 205 of the E- Government Act,'' namely the hortatory ``shall'' reveals a problem that is addressed by H.R. 1303:

``[t]he Judicial Conference of the United States shall

prescribe rules . . . to protect privacy and security

concerns relating to electronic filing of documents and the

public availability under this subsection of documents filed

electronically.''

While the overt intent of the hortatory language suggests a legislative benefit to the public and to the electronic infrastructure, by implication, the provision waters down the discretion of the Federal Courts to determine the sealability of court documents as well as restrict public access to certain case information.

In the wake of 9/11 and the mounting death toll that is ever- escalating even in the aftermath of war, it is vital that we keep our secure information secure and less vulnerable to negligent or abusive acts, as the net effect could lead to larger problems. Allowing carte blanche access to certain court electronic court documents allowing the manipulation of the sealability of those documents is a disaster waiting to happen. The type of crimes to be controlled by the bill introduced in the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, namely H.R. 1678, the ``Anti-Hoax Terrorism Act of 2003'' could create an administrative nightmare for the federal court system. The cost, time, and energy expenditure that could come about absent the protections of H.R. 1303 would only make our government even more vulnerable to real terrorist attacks. As a Member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, I am particularly interested in preventing terrorism hoaxes and holding criminal transgressors accountable. Allowing parties access to freely manipulate certain electronic litigation documents will lead to severe administrative backlog and the concomitant vulnerability of other areas of our critical infrastructure. Problems never stop where they begin. Homeland security funds and resources are both scarce and precious. During my work on the Select Committee on Homeland Security, I have spoken with numerous fire departments, police departments, hazardous materials teams, and other first responders across the country that are not receiving the funding, equipment, and other resources they need to adequately protect their communities.

Mr. Speaker, for the reasons set forth above, I support H.R. 1303, the ``E-Government Act of 2003'' and thank you for this opportunity to consider it.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1303) to Amend the E-Government Act of 2002 with respect to rulemaking authority of the Judicial Conference, as amended.

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 material on H.R. 1303 currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1303 amends the E-Government Act to require the Judicial Conference of the United States to promulgate national rules to address privacy and security concerns relating to the electronic filing of court documents and the public availability of documents filed electronically.

To the extent any rules provide for the redaction of certain information in order to protect privacy, this bill requires that the rules allow litigants to file and access unredacted documents under seal for evidentiary purposes in addition to a redacted version for public use.

H.R. 1303 addresses the concerns of both the Department of Justice and the judiciary. The Department of Justice was concerned that the privacy policy of the Judicial Conference could impede the legal introduction into evidence of information it deemed necessary to prove the elements of certain cases, such as bank account numbers in a fraud prosecution. The judiciary was concerned that a privacy policy allowing parties to file unredacted and sealed documents and a redacted public version could result in confusion, error, privacy risks, and reduction in access to public documents. H.R. 1303 requires the enactment of national rules to protect privacy and security concerns. However, such rules permit the filing of one ``reference list,'' to be kept under seal, that would include a complete version of each personal data identifier and a corresponding partially redacted version of each identifier. Only the partially redacted version may be used in future filings.

The bill encourages uniformity in all jurisdictions and empowers and Department of Justice to access the information necessary to prosecute crimes. The Judicial Conference will retain the authority to enact rules that comply with case law, provide the greatest public access to information possible, and protect the privacy of all participants in the Federal judicial system.

This is a good bill and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, the E-Government Act I introduced improves the information management of the Federal Government by authorizing upgrades to enhance systems management, information technology, and security. It also includes provisions that ensure greater citizen access to Federal Government information.

Section 205 of the Act instructs the Federal courts to establish and maintain a Web site with information such as courthouse locations, relevant telephone numbers, court rules, docket listings, written opinions, and case filings.

In addition, it requires the Judicial Conference to prescribe rules to protect privacy and security concerns relating to electronic filing of documents and the public availability of documents filed electronically.

After the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property marked up H.R. 1303, the Department of Justice raised concerns that under H.R. 1303, the Judicial Conference could adopt rules that might prevent the Department from using certain information necessary to prosecute cases, such as credit card numbers in a fraud prosecution.

At the Committee on the Judiciary markup of H.R. 1303, I offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute that addressed the concerns of both the Department of Justice and the Judiciary.

H.R. 1303 will protect privacy of Federal litigants, provide for public access to information, limit party error, and ensure the introduction of evidence necessary for the prosecution of certain cases.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1303 is a good bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 2, 2004, at 10:15 a.m., in closed session to receive a briefing on the situation in Iraq.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 2, 2004, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on ``The Role of State Securities Regulators in Protecting Investors.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce,

Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet Wednesday, June 2, 2004, at 9:30 a.m. on fire fighting aircraft.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet Wednesday, June 2, 2004, at 2:30 p.m. on nominations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 2, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., to hold a hearing on the Greater Middle East Initiative.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, June 2, 2004 at 10 a.m. to hold a business meeting to consider pending Committee business.