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.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to 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.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the motion to concur currently under consideration.

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

I support H.R. 1059 and thank Mr. Conyers for sponsoring it. I also thank Mr. Cohen of Tennessee and Mr. Johnson of Georgia for serving as cosponsors.

H.R. 1059 promotes an important goal, providing security for Federal judges. Under the Ethics in Government Act, judges and other high-level judicial branch officials must file annual financial disclosure reports. This requirement increases public confidence in government officials and better enables the public to judge the performance of those officials. However, Congress enacted legislation that 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 their family.

Those who seek 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 claims on property owned by judges and their families. Harassers could use judicial financial disclosure reports to more easily identify such property.

The Judicial Conference delegated to its Committee on Financial Disclosure the responsibility to implement 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 U.S. Marshals Service, the committee also reviews and approves or disapproves any request for redaction or statutorily mandated information where the filer believes the release of the information could endanger the filer and their family. Under the Judicial Conference's regulations, no redaction will be granted without a clear nexus between a security risk and the information for which redaction is sought.

The law has worked well through the years and has been reauthorized twice since 2001; but it expires at the end of this calendar year if we fail to act, an outcome that is unacceptable.

Last year the Marshals Service investigated and analyzed almost 1,400 threats and inappropriate communications to judicial officials, nearly three times as many threats as recorded in 2003. And there were more than 3,900 incidents and arrests at U.S. court facilities in 2010.

Financial disclosures help maintain an open and transparent government, but government transparency should not come at the cost of personal security for government officials. Judges and other judicial employees perform important work that is integral to our democratic system of government. In order to preserve the integrity of our democracy, we must protect the integrity of our courts; and that means ensuring the security of judges and other judicial employees from intimidation and threats.

The Senate made two minor amendments to the bill, which we accept. The first amendment involves an annual report that the administrative Office of the U.S. Courts submits to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. The report summarizes the redactions made in the preceding year and explains why they were made. The first amendment mandates that the report also be sent to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, as well as the Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee. The second amendment sunsets the redaction authority after 6 years, in 2017.

Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 1059, as amended by the Senate, and urge my colleagues to extend the redaction authority.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 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.

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 materials on H.R. 1059 currently under consideration.

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

I support H.R. 1059 and again thank the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for having sponsored it. I also thank the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) and the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson) for having served as cosponsors.

H.R. 1059 promotes an important goal--providing security for Federal judges. Under the Ethics in Government Act, judges and other high-level judicial branch officials must file annual financial disclosure reports. This requirement increases public confidence in government officials and better enables the public to judge the performance of those officials.

However, recognizing the nature of the judicial function and the increased security risks it entails, Congress also enacted legislation that allowed the Judicial Conference to redact statutorily required information in a financial disclosure report where release of such information could possibly 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. However, individuals targeting judges for harassment have also been known to file false liens on properties owned by judges and their families. Harassers could use judicial financial disclosure reports to more easily identify such property.

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. In consultation with the U.S. Marshals Service, the committee also 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 or his or her family.

Under the Judicial Conference's regulations, no redaction will be granted without a clear nexus between a security risk and the information for which a redaction is sought. The law has worked well through the years and has been reauthorized twice since 2001. But it expires at the end of this calendar year if we fail to act--an outcome that is unacceptable. Last year, the Marshals Service investigated and analyzed almost 1,400 threats and inappropriate communications to judicial officials--nearly three times as many threats recorded in 2003. There were more than 3,900 ``incidents'' and arrests at U.S. court facilities in 2010.

Financial disclosures are an important part of maintaining an open and transparent government, Mr. Speaker. But government transparency should not come at the cost of personal security for government officials. Judges and other judicial employees perform important work that is integral to our democratic system of government. In order to preserve the integrity of our democracy, we must protect the integrity of our courts. And that means ensuring the security of judges and other judicial employees from intimidation and threats.

In conclusion, there's no evidence that the law is being abused. I support H.R. 1059 and urge my colleagues to extend the redaction authority permanently.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chairman of Judiciary, Lamar Smith, as well as the subcommittee chair, Mr. Coble, for swiftly moving this through the Judiciary Committee. I think it has been explained that the redaction of sensitive information for the benefit of members of the judiciary is obvious and important. I am hoping that with my consultation with the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee we would be able to make the permanent feature that Howard Coble has discussed a permanent one and a part of the law as it now exists.

H.R. 1059 gives the Judicial Conference of the United States permanent authority to redact certain sensitive information from public financial disclosures required by the Ethics in Government Act.

This important legislation, which was ordered reported from the Judiciary Committee by voice vote, deserves the support of the entire House for a number of reasons.

First, H.R. 1059 properly balances the purposes of the Ethics in Government Act with the need to ensure the security of judges, judicial employees, and their families.

The Ethics in Government Act serves to promote ethics and openness in the federal government by reducing the risk of corruption or preventing the appearance of impropriety.

The Act accomplishes this objective by requiring the public disclosure of certain information, including identification of personal financial information, non-governmental sources of income, gifts, property interests, and liabilities.

Unfortunately, the required disclosures can also include critical information about the filer's residence, a spouse's workplace, a child's workplace, or a vacation home. This information has the potential to place individual judges, employees, and their families at risk. The bill's redaction authority is critical to ensuring that this information does not get into the wrong hands.

Second, the risk to the personal safety of federal judges and court employees from disclosure of personal location information is real.

But, without further action, this important protection for judicial security will expire at the end of this year.

And, finally, making this redaction authority permanent will not lead to abuse of such authority.

The federal judiciary has utilized such authority very sparingly.

For instance, there were 17,658 financial disclosure filings between 2007 and 2010. Of those, there were 750 instances where filers requested redaction. Of that number, 645 redaction requests were granted in full, while 70 requests were granted in part, and 35 requests were denied.

Thus, in only 4.2 percent of filings was redaction even requested, and not all of those were granted.

It's clear, based on these statistics, that the federal judiciary exercises considerable restraint in applying its redaction authority in recognition of the need for public disclosure.

The Government Accountability Office similarly reported in 2004 that the judiciary's exercise of its redaction authority provided a measure of security to at-risk individuals, while not substantially interfering with dissemination of information to the public.

Congress first recognized the value of granting redaction authority to the judiciary back in 1998. It has repeatedly reauthorized redaction authority on a temporary basis since then, except for a two-year lapse in 2006 and 2007.

In order to avoid future lapses, this redaction authority should be made permanent.

In closing, I would like to thank Chairman Lamar Smith and Subcommittee Chair Howard Coble for moving this important legislation through the committee and swiftly to the floor. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I support 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. This legislation will provide a vital safety measure for judges who have dedicated their lives to serving the public.

As a senior Member of both the Judiciary and Homeland Security committees, I have worked tirelessly to ensure the safety and integrity of those who are members of the judiciary. The Ethics in Government Act requires judges, like Members of Congress and other high ranking public officials to file annual financial disclosure reports. This requirement serves to bolster the confidence of the public in the professional integrity of individuals who serve their community.

Although the intent of the Act is to bolster public confidence in the judiciary it has an unintended consequence inherent in full public disclosure. Full financial disclosure impacts the personal safety of judges, particularly the safety of judges who sentence criminals. Some of the information contained in financial disclosure reports could reveal information which pertains to the schools, workplaces, and homes of judges and their families. This type of information provides easy access to personal information that could be used by an individual to intimidate or harm a judge or her family. In order to mitigate these risks, section 7 of the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998 allows the Judicial Conference to redact information found in financial disclosures that would place a judge or their family at risk.

This legislation does not exempt judicial employees and judges from filing financial disclosures. The Judicial Conference's Committee on Financial Disclosures works in coordination with the U.S. Marshals Service to determine the merit of requests for redaction. The Judicial conference reports that between 2007 and 2010, of the 17,658 financial disclosure reports filed, there were only 750 redaction requests, or 4.2 percent of the reports filed. There were 645 redaction requests that were fully granted, and 70 that were partially granted.

This legislation protects judges and their families from those that may seek to harm or intimidate the judge. The majority of redaction requests that were approved contained information that indicated the whereabouts of the filer's family on a regular basis, or the residence at which the filing party lived. H.R. 1059 does not exempt anyone from fulfilling their requirement to file a financial disclosure.

In the 110th Congress, my colleagues and I extended the authorizing section of the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act twice to ensure continued protection of our judges and their families. The last extension will expire on December 31, 2011, leaving thousands of dedicated public servants and their loved ones vulnerable to harm or harassment.

I applaud my friend from Michigan, the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee for introducing this important legislation to protect judges and judicial employees. I urge my colleagues to lend their support to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, September 12, I was detained in my State on official business.

On rollcall vote 699 on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H.R. 2076, to amend the United States Code regarding providing of investigatory assistance, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote 700 on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H.R. 2633, to amend the United States Code regarding time limits for appeals, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote 701, H.R. 1059, to protect the safety of judges by extending the authority of the Judicial Conference to redact sensitive information on financial disclosure reports, and for other purposes, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the Chair regarding my absence from rollcall votes 699-701 on Monday, September 12, 2011.

For rollcall vote, 699, on motion to suspend the rules and agree to H.R. 2076, ``To amend title 28, United States Code, to clarify the statutory authority for the longstanding practice of the Department of Justice of providing investigatory assistance on request of State and local authorities with respect to certain serious violent crimes, and for other purposes,'' I would have voted ``aye.''

For rollcall vote 700, on motion to suspend the rule and agree to H.R. 2633, ``To amend title 28, United States Code, to clarify the time limits for appeals in civil cases to which United States officers or employees are parties,'' I would have voted ``aye.''

For rollcall vote 701, on motion to suspend the rules and agree as amended to H.Res 1316, ``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 purpose,'' I would have voted ``aye.''