To amend section 105(b)(3) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

This is a critically important piece of legislation that everyone in the House should support without reservation. H.R. 4311, which amends the 1978 Ethics in Government Act, will make permanent an expiring provision which protects the safety of our Nation's judges as well as the integrity of our judicial system.

And I know that everyone here remembers, as Mr. Sensenbrenner just reminded us, the horrifying murders of a Chicago judge's family members this past summer. These crimes were committed by an individual, who was angered by a ruling on his case. He went to the judge's home to confront her and, while there, shot her husband and mother in cold blood.

The bill we have before us will allow judges who have been threatened to withhold certain personal information from public record, information, such as their home address, that has been used in the past for the most tragic of ends.

And I want to emphasize that I strongly support the bill and I commend the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for bringing it to the floor today. No one here wishes to avoid our responsibility to protect those men and women who form the bedrock of our legal system, nor do any of us desire to in any way detract from the significance of this bill.

However, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this bill does not go far enough. My conscience compels me to pause here and remind my friends on the other side of the aisle that we are discussing a reform to the Ethics in Government Act, which should be extended to really talk about ethics in government, a vitally important piece of legislation which, when it was passed, confirmed the national commitment to the creation and preservation of the government as good and as ethical as the people it serves.

I, therefore, cannot let this moment pass without speaking of what has become a standing source of shame for this body and for this Nation: the collapse of ethical conduct within our House. Mr. Speaker, I have no choice but to speak of the topic here and now because this is the last time the House will address the subject of ethics this year.

Ethics reform has not made the Republican leadership's December agenda, just like it has not made the cut all

year long. But the ethical conduct of Members of this body is on the minds of those in whose interest we claim to act, the American people. They are demanding that action be taken, and it is on their behalf that I speak now.

The bill we will hopefully approve today is an example of the kind of legislation we should be passing here. It puts the well-being of the American people first. But the majority ushered in the year by putting itself first, gutting the ethical standards imposed on Members of this body so that they could more easily take advantage of the people's trust and get away with it.

With a little time and distance, it is now painfully obvious why the leadership went to such great lengths to roll back the ethics rules of the conference and of this House. A prolonged and impassioned public outcry forced the majority to abandon this blatant assault on ethics several months later, but the battle was far from over.

Even though the Republicans were shamed into retreat on the ethical assault, we have not had a working Ethics Committee in this House all year and we still do not today. As Members may recall, the majority initially attempted to eliminate its power, and when it could not do that, it fired the qualified investigative staff and tried to deliberately politicize the committee, and we have not had a working ethics process since. Only recently have we been able to forge an agreement which could restart the ethics process next year. And for both his principled stand in defense of the rules of the body and for his patience and commitment to restoring the ethics process, I commend the ranking member of the committee.

But the real question still lingers: What was the majority hiding? Despite their best efforts, the truth has come forth, and every day brings a new revelation which demonstrates the extent to which power has been abused and corruption scandals have mounted. Indictments and resignations have dominated the headlines. And Member after Member of this body has been shown they have committed their votes not in the public interest, but to special interests, those who seek the benefit of the few at the expense of the many.

Critical decisions at Federal agencies are being unethically manipulated by White House political operatives, and the results of these decisions are having a direct impact on the people of this Nation.

Make no mistake about it. This White House and this leadership have placed America up for sale to the highest bidder, and it is the American people paying the price while corrupt politicians and special interests reap the profits.

Citizens of this Nation have watched it all, stunned, disillusioned, and increasingly angry. The majority leader of the House repeatedly admonished on ethical violations and is now indicted for money laundering. A Member resigned in shame and pled guilty to bribery. New investigations by the Justice Department threatening to embroil many more of our colleagues in the growing stench of corruption surrounding Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

And as the public trust is battered and broken and potential ethics investigations pile up, the Ethics Committee chairman, who fired an experienced staff and supported changing the rules, has announced he will not conduct additional investigations into serious allegations of corruption because we do not have the money. Apparently, we cannot afford an ethics process in this government, only more tax cuts.

From this majority leadership, there has been no leadership. And the startling truth is it has been almost 12 months since we have had a functioning ethics process in the House. We still have no working Ethics Committee. We have no ethics reform. And after 12 months, we have scandal and deception and only silence, and that has become a national shame.

The time for accountability is now. The time for real reform is now. And the time for change is certainly now. And surely, Mr. Speaker, America can do better than this.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4311) to amend section 105(b)(3) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978.

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. 4311 currently under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4311, which would reauthorize a crucial judicial security measure. Under the Ethics in Government Act, judges and other high-level judicial branch officials must file annual disclosure reports. In the 105th Congress, we enacted 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 that information could endanger the filer or his or her family. This provision was extended for 4 years in the 107th Congress and is due to expire on December 31 of this year.

H.R. 4311 would permanently extend this important component of Federal judicial security. This legislation was recently passed on the House floor on November 9 by a vote of 375-45 as a provision of H.R. 1751; but since the other body has not taken up that bill, I have introduced this freestanding measure.

Judges today face a number of threats from convicted criminals seeking revenge against those who have presided over their trial to defendants seeking to influence a judge during a trial. In some cases, Federal judges and their families have been subject to more than just threats, as has been demonstrated by the murder of Judge Joan Lefkow's husband and elderly mother in their own home by a former plaintiff in Chicago earlier this year.

Since the authority was enacted in 1998 and renewed in 2001, Federal judges have been able to request the temporary redaction of some or all of the information on their disclosure forms. The Marshals Service must agree that the information on their disclosure forms could be used to harm the judge or his or her family in order for it to be redacted.

Disclosure information might seem to some to be an unlikely source of useful information to someone looking to harm a judge. That is a flawed assumption. For example, the fact that a judge's daughter has received a scholarship from a particular college must be reported on that judge's disclosure form. This information can then be used to identify the location of the judge's daughter.

Under this existing authority, judges are still required to make semi-annual disclosures and are only allowed to redact information during the time in which a threat exists. Once the threat ends, the information is once again made public. The GAO undertook an audit of this authority in 2004 and found minimal issues.

As a strong proponent of government openness and oversight, I recognize the impact of redaction authority. However, I also recognize that judges should not be forced to put their lives on the line or those of their families simply by doing their jobs. This fair and impartial administration of justice requires freedom from fear and intimidation. This legislation helps protect judges and their families from fear of reprisal.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I deeply appreciate all of the comments from my friends on the other side of the aisle about what a great bill this is. I thank them for that. It is a great bill.

But what we have seen here with this great bill and this necessary bill being brought up in order to protect judges and their families and court personnel is another example of why this House has sunk into partisan politics. Partisan politics should have nothing to do with whether or not we give the judicial conference the authority to redact personal information necessary to

protect the safety of judges and their families. But nonetheless, we have heard from three Members on the other side of the aisle in basically making a partisan attack.

Mr. Speaker, there is a time for partisan politics and there is a time to deal with the people's business. This bill deals with the people's business. I appreciate the support from the folks on the other side of the aisle, but, Mr. Speaker, this was not the vehicle to launch a partisan attack, and I am sorry that they chose to do so.

I urge support of the bill.

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

Mr. President, today by amending and passing H.R. 4311, we make another attempt to extend critical protections needed to keep the Nation's Federal judges and their families safe. Last November, the Senate passed S. 1558, which extended for 4 years the ``sunset'' of a provision granting the Judicial Conference of the United States the authority to redact information from a judge's mandatory financial disclosure in circumstances in which it is determined that the release of the information could endanger the filer or the filer's family. This provision was first enacted in the ``Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998'' and extended for 4 years in 2001. Chairman Specter and I worked with Senators Collins and Lieberman to amend S. 1558 to again include a 4-year ``sunset'' and also to extend its protections to the family members of filers.

Like the more comprehensive court security measure Chairman Specter and I have introduced, S. 1968, the ``Court Security Improvement Act of 2005, CSIA, from which it is drawn, S. 1558 provides judges and their families with needed security by extending the judges' redaction authority without interruption and expanding it to their families. It also strikes the right balance with the need for continuing congressional oversight to prevent the

misuse of this redaction authority, which has been a matter of some concern to me. I appreciate that the Judicial Conference is seeking to improve its practices and the Senate passed S. 1558 because none of us wants to see judges or their families endangered.

However, the House failed to take up and pass S. 1558 before the end of the session. As I said last December, I was disappointed at this failure, which allowed redaction authority to lapse at the end of last year. Instead, the House passed a separate bill, H.R. 4311, which would make redaction authority permanent and which fails to extend it to cover family members of filers. As passed by the House, H.R. 4311 would remove Congress' critical role providing oversight over the use of this extraordinary authority to redact financial disclosure forms. As amended and passed today, H.R. 4311 restores the proper balance while extending the redaction authority, retroactive to its expiration last December, until December 31, 2007. It also makes protection of judges' family members explicit.

I hope that the House will join us without delay both in extending the redaction authority and in expanding the scope of its protections to include family members, so that we can continue to protect the dedicated women and men throughout the Judiciary in this country who do a tremendous job under challenging circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4311. This bill protects judges against certain security threats. The September 11 tragedy and events thereafter have only heightened the security concerns that make this legislation necessary.

H.R. 4311 permanently extends the ability of judges to request redaction of their financial disclosure reports. The current redaction authority sunsets at the end of this year. Thus it is imperative that we act quickly to get this bill to the Senate where we hope it will pass before the end of the year so that the legislation can be enacted.

The redaction authority for judges is appropriately limited and thus should not raise concerns about undue restrictions on public access to financial disclosure reports. A judge's report may only be redacted if the Judicial Conference and the U.S. Marshals Service both find that revealing the personal and sensitive information could endanger that particular judge. Furthermore, the report can only be redacted to the extent necessary to protect the judge and only for so long as a danger exists.

The redaction authority has not been abused to date. Of over 2,000 judges filing reports in 2000, only 6 percent had their reports redacted in any way. Typically, the information redacted is limited to such things as a spouse's place of work, location of a judge's second home and things of that nature. It is obvious how a person of ill will could misuse that information to harm a judge or the judge's family.

This law is tightly drawn, and it requires the Judicial Conference, in concert with the Department of Justice, to file an annual report detailing the number and circumstances of all of the redactions. This statutory reporting requirement enables Congress to monitor for any abuse of the redaction authority, so I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important bill. It deals with the protection of judges, and I would hope that the Members of the House would pass the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill to make permanent an expiring provision in the current law that ensures protection for judges and for their families when they are threatened and they may be in danger. This is a much-needed revision of the 1978 Ethics in Government Act. But, in addition, this House would do well to pass a 2005 Ethics in Government Act of its own.

Indeed, we have seen in recent months how broken the ethics process in this body is. Had the majority shown as much initiative in fixing that process as it has in bringing this bill to the floor, perhaps we would not have seen Members of that majority indicted or pleading guilty to charges of bribery, money laundering, and tax evasion. As it stands, the Washington Post says investigators are now looking into the actions of at least a half dozen Members of Congress, senior congressional staff, one former Deputy Secretary of the Interior, and several lobbyists.

In the wake of the tragic murder of a Chicago judge last summer, the underlying legislation we consider takes steps to protect that judiciary. But in the wake of countless scandals that continue to bring shame to this institution and the majority, Democrats believe that the time has come to protect the integrity of the judicial process as well.

Mr. Speaker, just as we must protect the hardworking judicial officials in our country, so must we protect the American people, whom this breakdown in the ethics process impacts the most. As the leadership of this House spends more time in courthouses than in the people's House doing the people's business, they are the ones that we are putting at risk when we fail to protect our homeland, as the September 11 Commission chairman found just this week.

I support this legislation. But the time has come to put the needs of people before the special interests of the lobbyists.