Date: 2003-10-07
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of H.R. 1303. and ask my colleagues to vote for it. H.R. 1303 will address serious concerns expressed by the U.S. courts about the EGovernment Act of 2002. I believe the legislation will address these concerns while still serving the worthwhile purposes of the EGovernment Act. In the wee hours of the last day of the 107th Congress. the House and Senate both passed the EGovernment Act of 2002 by unanimous consent. The President later signed the act into law as Public Law 107347. Section 205 of that legislation required the U.S. courts to establish and maintain Web sites containing a variety of information. Required information includes access to docket information for each case. access to the substance of all written opinions issued by the court. and access to documents filed with the courthouse in electronic form. The legislation wisely recognized that the public interests in access to court documents and the protection of privacy must be balanced. Many court documents contain a variety of personal information. including bank account numbers. tax returns. and home addresses. Unrestricted Internet access to all court documents in their entirety might. therefore. seriously compromise the privacy of certain individuals. In acknowledgment of these serious privacy concerns. section 205 requires the U.S. Supreme Court to prescribe rules "to protect privacy and security concerns relating to electronic filing of documents and the public availability under this subsection of documents filed electronically." The Supreme Court is required to submit its prescribed rules to Congress. and the prescribed rules would be adopted if Congress failed to act to amend or reject them within 6 months. Section 205 also further dictates the substance of the rules that the U.S. Supreme Court must prescribe. Most relevant to the legislation before us. section 205 requires that the privacy rules adopted by the courts allow parties to file unredacted versions of court documents under seal. 0l 1415 This language addressed Justice Department concerns that the privacy rules could impede the introduction into evidence of information it deemed necessary to prove the elements of certain cases. Because of the lastminute nature of the EGovernment Act. neither the Committee on the Judiciary nor the U.S. Courts had adequate opportunity to review the final text of Section 205 before passage. Having now reviewed and reflected on Section 205. the Committee on the Judiciary had some concerns about the language. It is those concerns that H.R. 1303 addresses today. In allowing parties to file both redacted and sealed. unredacted sets of court documents. the U.S. courts believe Section 205 creates needless potential for confusion and error. In particular. the Courts assert Section 205 will needlessly complicate the process of making appropriate versions of documents available to juries and to the public. and for certifying appropriate versions of the documents for purposes of appeal. These concerns have been addressed in the legislation before us today. H.R. 1303 addresses the concerns of the courts. while accomplishing the objectives of the Department of Justice. In fact. H.R. 1303 as adopted by the Committee on the Judiciary represents a negotiated compromise between the Department of Justice and the U.S. courts. H.R. 1303 requires the courts to prescribe rules that allow parties to file a reference list with the court. This reference list would include both a complete and partiallyredacted version of each personal data identifier. The redacted version would be used in lieu of. and be construed to refer to. the complete version in subsequent filings in the case. The list. which would be maintained under seal. would. therefore. serve as a type of key. This approach resolves the concerns of the courts by eliminating the need to file two versions of a court document. It meets the needs of the Department of Justice by allowing for the filing of unredacted identifiers where necessary to accomplish the elements of a case. In conclusion. Mr. Speaker. I believe this legislation is a proportionate cure for a previouslyoverlooked defect in the EGovernment Act of 2002. Therefore. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation today. Mr. Speaker. I reserve the balance of my time.