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 rise today in strong support of H.R. 3229, a bipartisan, commonsense measure intended to protect the safety of federal judges and judicial employees.

The bill accomplishes this critical goal by extending the authority of the Judicial Conference to redact sensitive information contained in the financial disclosure reports filed by these individuals pursuant to the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. Specifically, H.R. 3229 would extend this authority for 10 years, that is, until December 31, 2027.

I am an original cosponsor and strong supporter of this bill for several reasons.

To begin with, absent a further extension of this authority, the Judicial Conference's ability to redact sensitive personal information from the financial disclosure statements filed by judges and judicial employees would cease

and thereby create potentially serious security risks to these individuals.

Judges and judicial employees are often the subject of threats, harassment, and violence. Like probation officers, these individuals routinely interact with disgruntled litigants and convicted criminals who may hold grudges against them.

A resentful litigant seeking to take revenge for a judicial decision can learn of a federal judge's home address, his or her spouse's place of employment, or a child's school, among other types of sensitive information, by requesting a copy of the judge's financial disclosure report.

During 2016, for instance, a federal judge was shot in front of his home, a murder-for-hire plot against a federal judge was uncovered, and threatening letters were sent to other judges.

Fortunately, section 105 of the Ethics in Government Act grants the Judicial Conference the authority to redact certain limited information from financial disclosure reports when the release of such information could endanger a judge, a judicial employee, or a member of their family.

Congress has extended this redaction authority on 5 previous occasions, most recently on January 3, 2012.

Another reason why I support H.R. 3229 is that the Judicial Conference has exercised its redaction authority with demonstrated restraint.

As required by the Ethics in Government Act, the Conference has promulgated regulations requiring a clear nexus between a security risk and the need to redact sensitive information.

In addition, the Act requires the Judicial Conference to report annually to Congress on the number and nature of redactions as well as the reasons for them.

Based on a review of these reports, it is clear that only a small percentage of the financial disclosure reports filed contain an approved redaction of some information in the report.

For example, less than 3 percent of financial reports contained an approved redaction of some information over the past 5 years.

Finally, the need to extend this redaction authority--which will expire in just over 3 months--is a time-sensitive security matter that requires prompt consideration of H.R. 3229.

Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3229, which will simply extend the Judicial Conference's current redaction authority for an additional 10 years.

In closing, I want to commend Congressman Hakeem Jeffries for his leadership on this important legislation. We share his commitment to protecting the security of those public servants who serve in the federal judicial branch.

Accordingly, I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3229, which will extend for 10 years the soon expiring authority for Federal judges and judicial officers to redact from financial disclosure forms sensitive personal information that, if revealed, could compromise their safety and security.

An independent judiciary that is free of coercion is fundamental to our constitutional democracy, fundamental to

the principle of liberty and justice for all, and fundamental to the principle of equal protection under the law. Unfortunately, in this country, there are some who seek to compromise the integrity of the judicial branch through threats, harm, and harassment.

According to the U.S. Marshals Service, in fiscal year 2017, there has been an increase in every major recorded statistical category regarding the targeting of members of the Federal bench and judiciary employees. Failure to extend this authority will create grave security risks to judges, judiciary employees, and their families.

Each year, only a very small percentage of the financial disclosure reports filed contain an approved redaction of information. Redaction only occurs if there is a clear nexus between a security risk and the information for which redaction is sought.

Federal judges and other employees of the judicial branch routinely interact with disgruntled litigants or dangerous defendants and others who may seek to do them harm.

For example, in 2016, a disgruntled defendant was convicted of a diabolical plot to kidnap, torture, and murder U.S. District Judge Andrew J. Guilford, who presided over that defendant's wire fraud conviction.

In March of this year, the FBI reported that U.S. District Judge Derek Watson, who issued a temporary retaining order against the President's travel ban, has subsequently been the target of repeated violent threats.

In April, Jason Springer, an ISIS sympathizer, was indicted on a charge of threatening to murder U.S. District Judge Elizabeth Kovachevich by flying an explosive drone into her window.

The need to extend the redaction authority is a time-sensitive security matter, and I thank Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, Subcommittee Chairman Issa, and Ranking Member Nadler of the subcommittee, for their leadership on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a distinguished champion of safety of Federal judges.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3229, which would extend an important tool in protecting the safety of judges and their families.

Each year, Federal judges and certain other judicial employees are required to file financial disclosure reports which are made available to the public. These reports serve a vital function in promoting transparency, particularly of any potential conflicts of interest.

By their nature, however, they also disclose sensitive personal information like a home address or family member's place of business. In the hands of a disgruntled member of the public seeking retribution or of an otherwise disturbed individual, this information could put judges and their families at great risk.

Under current law, the Judicial Conference may redact information from a financial disclosure form if publishing such information could endanger the safety of the filer or a member of the filer's family. Unless Congress acts, this redaction authority will expire on December 31 of this year. This commonsense bill simply extends the redaction authority for 10 years.

Unfortunately, many Federal judges face threats to their safety merely for doing their jobs, and according to the Judicial Conference, the number of threats against them are increasing. For example, an Ohio man recently pleaded guilty to arranging a murder-for-hire plot against a judge; an alleged ISIS sympathizer who was attempting to learn a judge's address was indicted a few months ago for threatening the judge; and last year, a California man, who was already in prison, was convicted of plotting to have the Federal judge, prosecutors, and FBI agents killed as revenge.

Sadly, earlier this year, we also saw threats against several judges who ruled against President Trump's Muslim ban. After the President himself launched a verbal assault against the judges and against the Federal judiciary more generally, the judges faced a cascade of online threats and they required heightened security measures. Even without such irresponsible and dangerous behavior by the President, Federal judges regularly face threats, and this legislation is an important tool in protecting their safety.

Although disclosure forms should only be redacted in the most extreme and limited circumstances, the Judicial Conference has used its redaction authority sparingly and wisely, and it should continue to have this authority available to it when circumstances warrant its use.

I appreciate Mr. Jeffries' leadership in introducing this legislation. I want to recognize Ranking Member Conyers for the work he has done to champion this issue over the years as well. I thank Chairman Goodlatte and Mr. Issa for moving this bipartisan bill forward.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3229) 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, 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. 3229, currently under consideration.

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

As chairman of the Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet Subcommittee, I recognize the importance of judicial security needs.

Federal judges hear cases involving hardened criminals on a regular basis. Although not everyone threatens a Federal judge and not everyone is a gang member, many are. Federal judges and their families should not be at risk for simply doing their jobs.

Congress provides funding for a variety of judicial security needs by building secure court houses, staffing metal detectors at entrances, and so on, but there is a simple way to address security needs without extending taxpayer dollars. One method is to redact specific information from judicial financial disclosure reports done by the judges and other key employees. If they are to be targeted, we cannot have a judge's home address or other information that allows tracking by a criminal to, in fact, be a source of their demise.

The redaction authority has been in place since Congress began, in 1998, to allow for this, and it has been extended and expanded, in a number of cases, to include family members. The redaction process requires input and agreement from the U.S. Marshals Service.

The legislation that my colleague from New York (Mr. Jeffries) and I introduced would extend the redaction authority for an additional 10 years, until December 31, 2027. There is no financial impact from this, and it serves to put judges and their families in a position they have historically been in since 1998: less at risk by this information being disclosed.

I not only urge the House to support this legislation, but after careful consideration and research, we find that this authority has not been abused, it has been properly used, and the Federal judges have earned the absolute right to this limited redaction.

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

Mr. Speaker, I, too, would close by urging my colleagues to support this well-thought-out, well authored, and in regular hearings by the committee, universally accepted as necessary and reasonable for a 10-year extension.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from New York for a very thoughtful and, really, a crucial element to justice.

Allow me to acknowledge Mr. Jeffries for his leadership, Mr. Conyers and Mr. Goodlatte for working in a bipartisan manner, and the manager of the bill for his support, and indicate that this has evidence that we wish we did not have to see or could not document.

I know that in my own State just a couple of years ago, the Federal judge in San Antonio was attacked and, in my recollection, lost his life. So we realize that justice requires us to eliminate impediments of fear and danger that may come to the Federal judiciary.

This thoughtful legislation to redact addresses and other personal information from financial disclosure forms of all of the judiciary, magistrates, and appeals courts, district courts, obviously, and the Supreme Court, is crucial for the courts that represent the third branch of government and really represent a need of the kind of stovepipe to allow them to render justice.

So on the financial disclosure forms, they are important for transparency, but I want to acknowledge that, unfortunately, there are individuals who would take out their disgust or contempt for the Federal Government and take that contempt out on the courts.

For that reason and for the reason that it has been reported that there are terrorist cells in every State, that we don't know from where that threat will come, and the fact that we have this very important bill, I want to congratulate the author of the bill. I hope that we will pass this bill as quickly as possible, which protects our Federal judiciary by allowing their personal information and that of their family members to be redacted because justice has to be kept safe and secure.