99–006 

112TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 112–189 

EXTENSION OF REDACTION AUTHORITY CONCERNING 

SENSITIVE SECURITY INFORMATION 

JULY 29, 2011.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. SMITH of Texas, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 1059] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred 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, 

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 ................................................................................................................... 3 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 3 

Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 3 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 3 

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures ...................................................... 3 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .......................................................... 3 

Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 4 

Advisory on Earmarks ............................................................................................. 4 

Section-by-Section Analysis .................................................................................... 4 

Agency Views ........................................................................................................... 5 

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

Purpose and Summary 

Judges and certain other judicial branch employees are required 

to file annual financial disclosure reports under the Ethics in Government Act. Given the security risks that confront members of the 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

1 5 U.S.C. app. 105. 

2Pub. L. No. 105–318. 

Judiciary, however, the Judicial Conference is authorized to redact 

sensitive information from these reports that could otherwise be 

used to compromise the safety of the filers or their families. The 

statutory authority of the Judicial Conference to redact this information expires on December 31, 2011. H.R. 1059 permanently extends the authority beyond this date. 

Background and Need for the Legislation 

Under the Ethics in Government Act 1, judges and other highlevel judicial branch officials must file annual financial disclosure 

reports, the purpose of which is to increase public confidence in 

government officials and better enable 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 enacted section 7 of the 

‘‘Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998,’’ 2 which 

allowed 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. 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. Individuals targeting judges for harassment have also been known to file false liens 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 Committee’’) 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 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. Under the regulations promulgated by the Judicial Conference, no redaction will be granted in the absence of a 

clear nexus between a security risk and the information for which 

redaction is sought. 

Since redactions were approved in only a limited number of cases 

where judges or their family members were endangered by the release of the information, the Committee recommended that the 

sunset date of December 31, 2001, in section 7 be repealed. Due to 

Senate opposition to a permanent extension, however, Public Law 

107–126 extended the authorization for an additional 4 years, 

through December 31, 2005. 

The 110th Congress repeated the exercise twice by enacting Public Law 110–24, which extended the authority to December 31, 

2009; and Section 104 of Public Law 110–177, which extends the 

authority through December 31, 2011. If not extended again, the 

authority lapses after this date. 

Finally, between 2007 and 2010, the Judicial Conference notes 

that out of 17,658 filings, 750 (or 4.2%) resulted in redaction reVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:58 Jul 30, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR189.XXX HR189

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

quests. Of those, 645 (or 86%) were granted in full, and another 70 

(or 9.3%) were partially granted. The majority of the redactions 

concern information that reveals the presence of the filer or members of the filer’s family at unsecured locations or reveals the location of the filer’s residence. 

Hearings 

The Committee on the Judiciary held no hearings on H.R. 1059. 

Committee Consideration 

On July 20, 2011, the Committee met in open session and ordered the bill H.R. 1059 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. 

1059. 

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. 1059, 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, July 27, 2011. 

Hon. LAMAR SMITH, 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. 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, and for other purposes. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

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

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Martin von Gnechten, 

who can be reached at 226–2860. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF, DIRECTOR. 

Enclosure 

cc: Honorable John Conyers, Jr. 

Ranking Member 

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, and for 

other purposes. 

H.R. 1059 would repeal the sunset provision 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. Under current law, those provisions expire 

at the end of calendar year 2011. Based on information from the 

Administrative Office of the United States Courts, 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; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do 

not apply. 

H.R. 1059 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. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Martin von Gnechten, 

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

Theresa Gullo, Deputy 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. 1059 enhances 

the security of Federal judges and other judicial employees by extending the authority of the U.S. Judicial Conference to redact sensitive information from their financial disclosure reports. 

Advisory on Earmarks 

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

of Representatives, H.R. 1059 does not contain any congressional 

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

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

Section-by-Section Analysis 

The following discussion describes the bill as reported by the 

Committee. 

Sec. 1. Extension of Redaction Authority Concerning Sensitive Security Information. Section 1 corrects a misspelling set forth in the 

redaction portion of the Ethics in Government Act (‘‘Marshals’’ in 

lieu of ‘‘Marshall’’). Section 1 also strikes the sunset provision (DeVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:58 Jul 30, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR189.XXX HR189

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

cember 31, 2011) that applies to the redaction authority, thereby 

making it permanent. 

Agency Views 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHR1059A-1.eps
6 

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): 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHR1059A-2.eps
7 

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 øMarshall¿

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

* * * * * * * 

ø(E) This paragraph shall expire on December 31, 2011, and 

apply to filings through calendar year 2011.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS