```

[House Report 107-239]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

107th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    107-239

======================================================================

 
    TO MAKE PERMANENT THE AUTHORITY TO REDACT FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE 
         STATEMENTS OF JUDICIAL EMPLOYEES AND JUDICIAL OFFICERS

                                _______
                                

October 12, 2001.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Sensenbrenner, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 2336]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 2336) to make permanent the authority to redact 
financial disclosure statements of judicial employees and 
judicial officers, having considered the same, reports 
favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that the 
bill do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Purpose and Summary..............................................     1
Background and Need for the Legislation..........................     2
Hearings.........................................................     2
Committee Consideration..........................................     3
Vote of the Committee............................................     3
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     3
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................     3
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................     3
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................     3
Constitutional Authority Statement...............................     4
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion.......................     4
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............     4
Markup Transcript................................................     5

                          Purpose and Summary

    The purpose of H.R. 2336 is to make permanent the authority 
of the Judicial Conference of the United States to redact 
financial disclosure statements of judicial employees and 
judicial officers where the release of the information could 
endanger the filer or his or her family.

                Background and Need for the Legislation

    Under the Ethics in Government Act, judges and other high-
level judicial branch officials must file annual financial 
disclosure reports. However, recognizing the nature of the 
judicial function and the increased security risks it entails, 
the 105th Congress enacted section 7 of 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 the 
information could endanger the filer or his or her family. This 
provision will sunset on December 31, 2001, in the absence of a 
legislative extension.
    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. The Committee 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 and his family.
    The Judicial Conference Committee on Financial Disclosure 
recently submitted a report on section 7. The Committee 
monitors the release of financial disclosure reports to ensure 
compliance with the statute, reviews redaction requests, and 
approves or disapproves any request for the redaction of 
statutorily mandated information where the release of the 
information could endanger a filer. In 2000, the Committee 
noted that: (1) 13 financial disclosure reports were wholly 
redacted because the judge was under a specific, active 
security threat; (2) 140 reports were partially redacted (59 of 
which were based on specific threats; the other 81 due to 
general threats and the potential risk of disclosure of a 
family member's unsecured workplace or a residence of a judge 
or a judge's family); and (3) a total of 218 financial 
disclosure reports, which includes reports from previous years, 
were partially redacted.
    The purpose of the annual financial disclosure reports 
required by the Ethics in Government Act is to increase public 
confidence in government officials and better enable the public 
to judge the performance of those officials. The Committee 
recommended that the sunset of section 7 be repealed because 
redactions were approved in only a limited number of cases 
where judges or their family members were endangered by the 
release of the information. H.R. 2336, therefore, achieves the 
objectives of providing public access to such information 
without compromising the safety of Federal judges and their 
families.

                                Hearings

    There were no hearings held on H.R. 2336.

                        Committee Consideration

    On October 3, 2001, the Committee met in open session and 
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 2336, by voice vote, a 
quorum being present.

                         Vote of the Committee

    There were no recorded votes on H.R. 2336.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports 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.

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    H.R. 2336 does not authorize funding. Therefore, clause 
3(c) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives 
is inapplicable. The purpose of H.R. 2336 is to make permanent 
the authority of the Judicial Conference of the United States 
to redact financial disclosure statements of judicial employees 
and judicial officers where the release of the information 
could endanger the filer or his or her family.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Clause 3(c)(2) of House rule XIII 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 H.R. 2336, 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, October 12, 2001.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, 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. 2336, a bill to 
make permanent the authority to redact financial disclosure 
statements of judicial employees and judicial officers.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Lanette J. 
Walker, who can be reached at 226-2860.
            Sincerely,
                                  Dan L. Crippen, Director.

Enclosure

cc:
        Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
        Ranking Member
H.R. 2336--A bill to make permanent the authority to redact financial 
        disclosure statements of judicial employees and judicial 
        officers.
    H.R. 2336 would repeal the sunset provision in the Ethics 
in Government Act of 1978 relating to the authority of certain 
judicial employees and judicial officers to revise their 
financial disclosure statements. CBO estimates that 
implementing H.R. 2336 would have no significant impact on the 
Federal budget. The bill would not affect direct spending or 
receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. 
H.R. 2336 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and 
would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Lanette J. 
Walker, who can be reached at 226-2860. This estimate was 
approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for 
Budget Analysis.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of the rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority 
for this legislation in Article III, section 1 of the 
Constitution.

               Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion

Section 1. Repeal of Sunset Provision
    Section 1 of H.R. 2336 would repeal section 105(b)(3)(E) of 
the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.). This 
section will make permanent the authority to redact financial 
disclosure statements of judicial employees and judicial 
officers.

         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 and 
existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):

          SECTION 105 OF THE ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT ACT OF 1978

                CUSTODY OF AND PUBLIC ACCESS TO REPORTS

    Sec. 105. (a) * * *
    (b)(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (3)(A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    [(E) This paragraph shall expire on December 31, 2001, and 
apply to filings through calendar year 2001.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                           Markup Transcript

                            BUSINESS MEETING

                       WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2001

                  House of Representatives,
                                Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:00 p.m., in 
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James 
Sensenbrenner, Jr. [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Committee will be in order. A working quorum is present. 
Pursuant to notice, I now call up the bill, H.R. 2336, to make 
permanent the authority to redact financial disclosure 
statements of judicial employees and judicial officers for 
purposes of markup and move its favorable recommendation to the 
House. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read 
and open for amendment at any point. The Chair recognizes the 
gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble, to briefly explain 
the bill.
    [The bill, H.R. 2336, follows:]

    
    
    Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill, Mr. 
Chairman, came directly to the full Committee. As you know, it 
did not clear through Subcommittee. So if I may, I think I can 
read this, Mr. Chairman, in a couple minutes. Would this be in 
order?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Surely. The gentleman is 
recognized.
    Mr. Coble. This bill will make permanent the authority to 
redact financial disclosure statements of judicial employees 
and judicial officers. Under the Ethics of Government Act, 
judges and other high-level judicial branch officials must file 
annual financial disclosure reports. However, due to the nature 
of the judicial function of the increased security risks it 
entails, section 7 of the Identity Theft and Assumption 
Deterrence Act of 1998 allows the Judicial Conference to redact 
statutorily required information in a financial disclosure 
report when release of the information could endanger the filer 
or his or her family.
    This provision will sunset on December 31, 2001, in the 
absence of further legislative action. This is why it is so 
important, Mr. Chairman, for us to consider this today because 
at the sunset--if we don't resolve it prior to the sunset 
effective date, then the redaction, of course, takes full force 
and they will have to fully disclose. We are not talking about 
many judges that are involved, but those who are involved who 
have security risks imposing. I think we do need to address 
this. As far as I know, Mr. Chairman, there is no opposition, 
and I move its passage.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Coble follows:]
 Prepared Statement of the Honorable Howard Coble, a Representative in 
               Congress From the State of North Carolina
    Thank you Mr. Chairman. H.R. 2336 will make permanent the authority 
to redact financial disclosure statements of judicial employees and 
judicial officers.
    Under the Ethics in Government Act, judges and other high-level 
judicial branch officials must file annual financial disclosure 
reports. However, due to the nature of the judicial function and the 
increased security risks it entails, section 7 of the ``Identity Theft 
and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998'' 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 
his or her family. This provision will sunset on December 31, 2001, in 
the absence of further legislative action.
    The Judicial Conference Committee on Financial Disclosure recently 
submitted a report on section 7. The Committee monitors the release of 
financial disclosure reports to ensure compliance with the statute, 
reviews redaction requests, and approves or disapproves any request for 
the redaction of statutorily mandated information where the release of 
the information could endanger a filer. In 2000, the Committee noted 
that: (1) 13 financial disclosure reports were wholly redacted because 
the judge was under a specific, active security threat; (2) 140 judges' 
reports were partially redacted (59 of which were based on specific 
threats; the other 81 due to general threats and the potential risk of 
disclosure of a family member's unsecured workplace or a residence of a 
judge or a judge's family); and (3) a total of 218 financial disclosure 
reports, which includes reports from previous years, were partially 
redacted.
    The purpose of the annual financial disclosure reports required by 
the Ethics in Government Act is to increase public confidence in 
government officials and better enable the public to judge the 
performance of those officials. However, federal judges should be 
allowed to redact certain information from financial disclosures when 
they or a family member is threatened. Importantly, the practice has 
never interfered with the release of critical information to the 
public.
    H.R. 2336 will eliminate the sunset in section 7 and permit the 
Judicial Conference to permanently redact information in financial 
disclosure reports where the information could endanger the filer or 
his or her family. H.R. 2336 is a good bill. It enjoys bipartisan 
support and there is no known opposition. I urge my colleagues to 
support H.R. 2336.

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman yields back the balance 
of his time. Are there any amendments? Without any objection, 
any additional statements will appear in the record at this 
time, there being no amendments.
    The report and quorum is now present. Without objection, 
the previous question is ordered. Further proceedings on the 
bill will be postponed.
    Now the question--the report and quorum is now present, and 
the Committee will now return to the pending unfinished 
business upon which the previous question was ordered on H.R. 
2336.
    Those in favor of the motion to report the bill favorably 
will signify by saying aye. Opposed no. The ayes appear to have 
it. The ayes have it. The bill is favorably reported.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to move to go to 
conference pursuant to House rules. Without objection, the 
staff is directed to make any technical and conforming changes 
and all Members will be given 2 days, as provided by House 
rules, in which to submit additional dissenting, supplemental 
or minority views.
    [Intervening business.]
    And the Committee is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 8:30 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                

```