59–006 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 110–59 

JUDICIAL DISCLOSURE RESPONSIBILITY ACT 

MARCH 20, 2007.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. CONYERS, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 1130] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill 

(H.R. 1130) to amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to extend the authority to withhold from public availability a financial 

disclosure report filed by an individual who is a judicial officer or 

judicial employee, to the extent necessary to protect the safety of 

that individual or a family member of that individual, 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 ............................................................................................ 2 

Background and Need for the Legislation ............................................................. 2 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 4 

Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 4 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 4 

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures ...................................................... 4 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .......................................................... 4 

Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 5 

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 5 

Advisory on Earmarks ............................................................................................. 5 

Section-by-Section Analysis .................................................................................... 5 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 6 

Judiciary Conference Views .................................................................................... 7 

Additional Views ...................................................................................................... 11 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
2 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

H.R. 1130 would revive and extend until December 31, 2009 a 

provision permitting the Judicial Conference to redact from financial disclosure reports selected information that could reveal residences and other unsecured locations frequented by a judge or judicial employee, thereby exposing them to being targeted for physical 

harm. The bill would also add safety of family members to the 

ambit of concern warranting redaction. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

In response to the constitutional issues surrounding the Watergate crisis and the resignation of President Richard M. Nixon, the 

Ethics in Government Act was passed in 1978 to promote ethics 

and openness in government. Generally, the act established a certain rule of conduct for Federal employees to reduce corruption and 

prevent the improper use of knowledge gained while employed by 

the government, and more broadly to prevent the appearance of impropriety. 

The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 applies to all branches of 

government from the President, Vice President, and all GS-16 or 

above employees, Members of Congress and certain congressional 

employees, and Federal judges and certain employees of the judiciary. Specifically, those covered by the Act are required to disclose 

personal and financial information each year, including the source 

and amount of income, other than that earned as employees of the 

United States government, received during the preceding calendar 

year. They must also disclose the source, description, and value of 

gifts for which the aggregate value is more than a certain minimal 

amount, received from any source other than a relative; the source 

and description of reimbursements; the identity and category of 

value of property interests; the identity and category value of liabilities owed to creditors other than certain immediate family members; and other financial information. Under the Act, these reports 

are made public. 

Examples of sensitive personal information that can be disclosed 

in these reports include: 

Residence—Unsecured location may be disclosed by the listing 

of position as a condominium officer. 

Spouse’s workplace—Unsecured location may be disclosed by 

source of spouse’s income. 

Child’s school—Unsecured location may be disclosed by name 

of school listed as a creditor for tuition. 

Vacation home—Unsecured location may be disclosed by listing 

of property occasionally rented to others. 

In 1998, Congress recognized the potential for these disclosures 

to place individual judges at risk, and responded with legislation 

adding a new subsection to the Ethics in Government Act authorizing the Judicial Branch to redact information from financial disclosure reports under certain circumstances. Under that subsection, 

a report may be redacted ‘‘(i) to the extent necessary to protect the 

individual who filed the report; and (ii) for as long as the danger 

to such individual exists.’’ The Act further charged the U.S. Judicial Conference, in consultation with the Department of Justice, 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
3 

1Dennis Cauchon, Previously threatened, judge discovers her family slain, USA Today, Mar. 

3, 2005, at A1. Threats were previously made on Judge Lefkow’s life. In April 2004, Mathew 

Hale was convicted of conspiring to have his bodyguard kill Judge Lefkow in retaliation for rules 

she made against him in a copyright case involving the name of his group. 

with the task of submitting to the House and Senate Committees 

on the Judiciary an annual report documenting redactions. 

When originally passed, the provision contained a sunset clause 

whereby it would expire in December 2001, unless extended by 

Congress. In 2001, after the House of Representatives approved a 

bill striking the sunset clause and making the redaction authority 

permanent, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee (‘‘GAC’’) 

considered whether to make the authority permanent. GAC members raised several concerns about the bill, including the use of redaction authority to avoid revealing stock holdings and other financial assets. Additionally, GAC observed that complete withholding 

of financial disclosure had sometimes occurred, noting that such 

withholding seemed contrary to the intent of the statute. Ultimately, GAC recommended extending the redaction authority for 

four more years, until December 31, 2005. This extension would effectively allow for a more in-depth investigation of areas of concern 

before Congress decided whether to ultimately make the authority 

permanent. The extension was passed, and the authority expired in 

December 2005. 

This legislation preserves an important means of protecting the 

safety of those who work in the Federal Judicial Branch. In a June 

2000 address to the American Law Institute Annual Meeting, the 

late Chief Justice Rehnquist cited several examples of trial judges 

who were targets of violence and specifically referred to three 

judges who had been murdered at their homes. 

• In 1979, U.S. District Court Judge John Wood Jr. was fatally 

shot outside of his home by assassin Charles Harrelson. The 

murder contract had been placed by Texas drug lord Jamiel 

Chagra, who was awaiting trial before the judge. 

• In 1988, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Daronco was 

murdered at his house by Charles Koster, the father of the 

unsuccessful plaintiff in a discrimination case. 

• In 1989, U.S. Circuit Court Judge Richard Vance was killed 

by a letter bomb sent to his home. The letterbomb was attributed to racist animus against Judge Vance for writing an 

opinion reversing a lower-court ruling to lift an 18-year desegregation order from the Duval County, Florida schools. 

More recently, the tragic murders of U.S. District Court Judge 

Joan Humphrey Lefkow’s husband and mother have raised even 

more concerns about safety of the judiciary.1

In its report to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the Judicial Conference reported that of the 

3,942 Federal judges and judiciary employees required to file financial disclosure reports in 2004, 177 reports were partially redacted 

before release. In four instances, the approved redaction requests 

were based on specific threats such as high-threat trials, ongoing 

protective investigations, identity theft, and continuing threats 

from criminal defendants and disgruntled civil litigants. In 137 instances, the approved redaction requests were based on general 

threats and involved redacting a family member’s unsecured place 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
4 

of work, an unsecured location frequented by a judge, or the residence of a judge, judicial employee, or family member. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On February 28, 2007, the Committee met in open session and 

ordered the bill H.R. 1130 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. 

1130. 

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. 1130, 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, March 8, 2007. 

Hon. JOHN CONYERS, Jr., 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. 1130, the Judicial Disclosure Responsibility Act. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Daniel Hoople, who can 

be reached at 226–2860. 

Sincerely, 

PETER R. ORSZAG, 

DIRECTOR. 

Enclosure 

cc: Honorable Lamar S. Smith. 

Ranking Member 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
5 

H.R. 1130—Judicial Disclosure Responsibility Act. 

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1130 would have no significant impact on the Federal budget. H.R. 1130 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. 

H.R. 1130 would renew provisions 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. Those provisions (which expired in 2005) would be extended through 2009. The bill also would expand those protections 

to include information that could endanger a family member. 

Under the bill, the Administrative Office of the United States 

Courts (AOUSC) would be required to submit an annual report to 

the Congress specifying how often this authority is exercised and 

in what manner. Based on information from AOUSC, 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. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Daniel Hoople, who 

can be reached at 226–2860. This estimate was approved by Robert 

A. Sunshine, 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. 1130 will assist 

in the protection of judicial officers and judicial employees and a 

family members of that judicial employee. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for this legislation in article 1, section 8 of the Constitution. 

ADVISORY ON EARMARKS

In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, H.R. 1130 does not contain any congressional 

earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined 

in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of Rule XXI. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

The following discussion describes the bill as reported by the 

Committee. 

Sec. 1. Short title. This section sets forth the short title of the bill 

as the ‘‘Judicial Disclosure Responsibility Act.’’

Sec. 2. Protection of Family Members. This section amends the 

Ethic in Government Act of 1978 to include family members of the 

individual covered by the Act. 

Sec. 3. Financial Disclosure Reports. This section would extend 

the Judicial Conference authority to redact to 2009. The section 

would also require that the report to Congress include 1) the nature or type of information redacted; 2) what steps are in place to 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
6 

ensure that sufficient information is available to litigants to determine if there is a conflict of interest; 3) principles used to guide the 

implementation of the redaction authority; and 4) public complaints 

received relating to any redactions. 

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

(B) A report may be redacted pursuant to this paragraph only— (i) to the extent necessary to protect the individual who filed 

the report or a family member of that individual; and 

* * * * * * * 

(C) The Administrative Office of the United States Courts shall 

submit to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and of the Senate an annual report with respect to the 

operation of this paragraph including— (i) * * * 

(ii) the total number of individuals whose reports have been 

redacted pursuant to this paragraph; øand¿ 

(iii) the types of threats against individuals whose reports 

are redacted, if appropriateø.¿; 

(iv) the nature or type of information redacted; 

(v) what steps or procedures are in place to ensure that sufficient information is available to litigants to determine if there 

is a conflict of interest; 

(vi) principles used to guide implementation of redaction authority; and 

(vii) any public complaints received relating to redaction. 

* * * * * * * 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
7 

(E) This paragraph shall expire on December 31, ø2005¿ 2009, 

and apply to filings through calendar year ø2005¿ 2009. 

* * * * * * * 

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE VIEWS


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARINGJCJ1.eps
8 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARINGJCJ2.eps
9 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARINGFD1.eps
10 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARINGFD2.eps
(11) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

H.R. 1130, the Judicial Disclosure Responsibility Act of 2007, 

amends the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to restrict disclosure 

of personal information about family members of judges, and it provides for a four-year extension of the authority of the Judicial Conference to redact certain personal information of judges from financial disclosure reports. 

At the February 28, 2007, markup on this legislation, I offered 

an amendment to make a simple and straight-forward change to 

H.R. 1130. The Judicial Disclosure Responsibility Act contains a 

four-year extension of redaction authority. My amendment provides 

for a permanent extension to this authority. 

Nearly every Member on this Committee is on record as supporting a permanent extension. In the 109th Congress, H.R. 1751, 

the Court Security Improvement Act, contained the permanent extension and it passed the House by a vote of 375–45. All but a 

handful of Members on the House Judiciary Committee voted in 

favor of the Court Security Improvement Act. I would dare say that 

none of the five current Committee Members who opposed that legislation did so because it would have permanently extended the authority 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. 

Since the Senate failed to consider the Court Security Improvement Act, I introduced this crucial judicial security measure as a 

stand-alone bill which passed the House by voice vote. During debate on that bill a number of my friends on the other side of the 

aisle spoke favorably about what a great bill it was. 

Although I am disappointed that my amendment was not adopted during markup, I am encouraged that Chairman Conyers noted 

we would attempt to make the protections permanent when considering court security legislation later this year. 

During my tenure as Chairman of this Committee, I did battle 

with the other body on many occasions. Several times we reported 

legislation out of this Committee that passed the House with little 

or no dissent, only to see those bills die. I must warn my good 

friend, Chairman Conyers, to be careful when depending on ‘‘pretty 

good assurances’’ from the other body. 

Making redaction authority permanent is the right thing to do. 

Members of this Committee can, in Chairman Conyers words, 

‘‘trust me,’’ that I will continue to push for making this authority 

permanent when we consider a court security bill later this year. 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING