99–006

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

2

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.

3

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.

4

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)***

* * * * * * *

5

ø(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:]

6

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 discloVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:58 Oct 12, 2001 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR239.XXX pfrm04 PsN: HR239
7

sure 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.

8

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.]

Æ