[Senate Report 115-172]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 242
115th Congress } { Report
SENATE
1st Session } { 115-172
_______________________________________________________________________
.
TO AMEND THE ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT ACT OF 1978 TO REAUTHORIZE THE
JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES TO REDACT SENSITIVE
INFORMATION CONTAINED IN FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REPORTS OF JUDICIAL
OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
to accompany
S. 1584
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
October 16, 2017.--Ordered to be printed
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
79-010 WASHINGTON : 2017
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
RAND PAUL, Kentucky JON TESTER, Montana
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire
STEVE DAINES, Montana KAMALA D. HARRIS, California
Christopher R. Hixon, Staff Director
Gabrielle D'Adamo Singer, Chief Counsel
Margaret E. Daum, Minority Staff Director
Stacia M. Cardille, Minority Chief Counsel
Charles A. Moskowitz, Minority Senior Legislative Counsel
Katherine C. Sybenga, Minority Counsel
Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
Calendar No. 242
115th Congress } { Report
SENATE
1st Session } { 115-172
======================================================================
TO AMEND THE ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT ACT OF 1978 TO REAUTHORIZE THE
JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES TO REDACT SENSITIVE
INFORMATION CONTAINED IN FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REPORTS OF JUDICIAL
OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
_______
October 16, 2017.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Johnson, from the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 1584]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, to which was referred the bill (S. 1584) to amend the
Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to reauthorize the Judicial
Conference of the United States to redact sensitive information
contained in financial disclosure reports of judicial officers
and employees, and for other purposes, having considered the
same, reports favorably thereon without amendment and
recommends that the bill do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
I. Purpose and Summary..............................................1
II. Background and Need for the Legislation..........................1
III. Legislative History..............................................3
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis......................................3
V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact..................................3
VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................4
VII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............4
I. Purpose and Summary
The purpose of S. 1584 is to permanently reauthorize the
Judicial Conference of the United States' authority to redact
sensitive information contained in financial disclosure reports
of judicial officers and employees.
II. Background and the Need for Legislation
The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 requires that certain
government officials, including judicial officers and certain
employees, make public financial disclosures, among other
things.\1\ The public may make requests to examine or receive a
copy of financial disclosure reports in accordance with the
procedure outlined in the statute.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\5 U.S.C. app. Sec. 101, et. seq.
\2\5 U.S.C. app. Sec. 105(a), (b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1998, Congress revised the Ethics in Government Act to
provide limited protections for judicial officers and
employees, in recognition of the fact that they are sometimes
the subject of threats or even violence as a result of their
public positions and the nature of their judicial work.\3\
Specifically, the 105th Congress granted the Judicial
Conference the ability to redact certain limited information
from financial disclosures reports when revealing personal and
sensitive information could endanger that individual.''\4\ The
authority was limited to just three years.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998, Pub. L.
No. 105-318 (1998) [hereinafter Identity Theft Act]; 144 Cong. Rec.
S12605 (daily ed. Oct. 14, 1998) (Statement of Sen. Patrick Leahy).
\4\Identity Theft Act, Sec. 7 (codified at 5 U.S.C. app.
Sec. 105(b)(3)(A)).
\5\Identity Theft Act, Sec. 7 (codified as amended at 5 U.S.C. app.
Sec. 105(b)(3)(E)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since that time, Congress has periodically reauthorized the
authority, each time for a limited number of years, requiring
Congress to keep passing legislation to continue the
authority.\6\ The last such extension was authorized by
Congress in 2011.\7\ Under current law, the authority is set to
expire on December 31, 2017.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\See Pub. L. No. 107-126 (2002) (extending the authority from
2001 to 2005); Pub. L. No. 110-24 (2007) (extending the authority from
2005 to 2009); and Pub. L. No. 110-177 (2008) (extending the authority
from 2009 to 2011).
\7\Pub. L. No. 112-84, Sec. 1(3) (2011).
\8\5 U.S.C. app. Sec. 105(b)(3)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The authority granted in the Judicial Conference is limited
to ensure that it is carefully and rarely used. According to
regulations issued by the Judicial Conference in 1999 and
updated several times since, the Judicial Conference's
Committee on Financial Disclosure is responsible for
``approv[ing] or disapprov[ing] any requests for the redaction
of statutorily mandated information where the release of the
information could endanger a filer or a family member.''\9\
Specifically, a filer may request redactions of specific
information ``to prevent public disclosure of personal or
sensitive information that could endanger the filer or a family
member directly, or indirectly by endangering another, if
possessed by a member of the public hostile to the filer or a
family member.''\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\Guide to Judicial Policy, Ch. 4 Judicial Conference Regulations
on Access to Reports, Vol. 2: Ethics and Judicial Conduct, Pt. D:
Financial Disclosure at Sec. 440(b), available at http://
www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/guide-vol02d-ch04_0.pdf
[hereinafter Guide to Judicial Policy].
\10\Guide to Judicial Policy at Sec. 460.20(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To have a request considered by the Judicial Conference,
the filer ``must state with specificity what material is sought
to be redacted'' and ``the reasons justifying redaction''
including but not limited to ``ongoing protective detail
provided by the United States Marshals Service'', ``particular
threats or inappropriate communications'', ``a high threat''
case, or ``certain information on the form that could endanger
the filer or a family member directly or indirectly if
possessed by a member of the public hostile to the filer or a
family member.''\11\ Once the request and accompanying
justification is received, the Judicial Conference works with
the U.S. Marshals Service to assess the threat.\12\ The
redaction may be granted only ``to the extent necessary to
protect the individual'' and ``for as long as the danger to
such individual exists.''\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\Id. at Sec. 460.20(d)(3).
\12\ 5 U.S.C. app. Sec. 105(b)(3)(A); Guide to Judicial Policy at
Sec. 460.20(d)(4).
\13\ 5 U.S.C. app. Sec. 105(b)(3)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the Judicial Conference is required to
provide annual reports to Congress on the number of filings
that included redacted information, the type of information
that was redacted, and the types of threats that requestors
reported.\14\ According to the Judicial Conference, an average
of only 2.7 percent of all financial disclosures have contained
an approved redaction of some kind over the last five
years.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Id. at Sec. 105(b)(3)(C).
\15\ Information provided to Comm. Staff by the Judicial Conference
(July 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the limited authority granted to the Judicial
Conference and the infrequency in which the authority is used,
the Committee supports passing S. 1584--a permanent
reauthorization of the authority--prior to its expiration on
December 31, 2017.
III. Legislative History
On July 19, 2017, Chairman Ron Johnson and Ranking Member
Claire McCaskill introduced S. 1584, a bill to amend the Ethics
in Government Act of 1978 to reauthorize the Judicial
Conference of the United States to redact sensitive information
contained in financial disclosure reports of judicial officers
and employees, and for other purposes. The bill was referred to
the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
The Committee considered S. 1584 at a business meeting on
July 27, 2017. No amendments were offered. The legislation was
approved by voice vote en bloc with Senators Johnson, Portman,
Lankford, Daines, McCaskill, Tester, Heitkamp, Peters, Hassan,
and Harris present.
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis of the Bill, as Reported
Section 1. Redaction authority concerning sensitive security
information
Subsection (a) strikes the sunset clause that would have
terminated the authority for the Judicial Conference to redact
certain financial information on public disclosures at the end
of calendar year 2017.
Subsection (b) makes two technical corrections to the
Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to fix unintended errors in
the original act: it strikes an errant additional comma in one
sentence and adds a comma in another sentence.
V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact
Pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 11(b) of rule
XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee has
considered the regulatory impact of this bill and determined
that the bill will have no regulatory impact within the meaning
of the Rule. The Committee agrees with the Congressional Budget
Office's statement that the bill contains no intergovernmental
or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no costs on state, local, or
tribal governments.
VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
August 16, 2017.
Hon. Ron Johnson,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1584, a bill to
amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to reauthorize the
Judicial Conference of the United States to redact sensitive
information contained in financial disclosure reports of
judicial officers and employees, and for other purposes.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Janani
Shankaran.
Sincerely,
Keith Hall.
Enclosure.
S. 1584--A bill to amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to
reauthorize the Judicial Conference of the United States to
redact sensitive information contained in financial disclosure
reports of judicial officers and employees, and for other
purposes
The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 requires certain
government officials to file public disclosures of their
financial and employment history. S. 1584 would permanently
extend the authority of the Judicial Conference to redact
sensitive information contained in financial disclosure reports
of judicial officers and employees if the Judicial Conference
determines that such disclosure could endanger the individual.
Under current law, that authority expires on December 31, 2017.
Based on information from the Administrative Office of the
United States Courts regarding the number of requests to redact
sensitive information, CBO estimates that implementing S. 1584
would have no significant effect on the federal budget.
Enacting S. 1584 would not affect direct spending or revenues;
therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.
CBO estimates that enacting S. 1584 would not increase net
direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four
consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2028.
S. 1584 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would impose no costs on state, local, or trial governments.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Janani
Shankaran. The estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss,
Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
VII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by
S. 1584 as reported are shown as follows (existing law proposed
to be omitted is enclosed in brackets, new matter is printed in
italic, and existing law in which no change is proposed is
shown in roman):
UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
TITLE 5--GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES
* * * * * * *
APPENDIX
* * * * * * *
ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT ACT
* * * * * * *
TITLE I--FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL PERSONNEL
* * * * * * *
SEC. 105. CUSTODY OF AND PUBLIC ACCESS TO REPORTS
(a) * * *
(b)
(1) Except as provided in the second sentence of this
subsection, each agency, each supervising ethics office
in the executive or judicial branch, the Clerk of the
House of Representatives, and the Secretary of the
Senate shall, within thirty days after any report is
received under this title by such agency or office or
by the Clerk or the Secretary of the Senate, as the
case may be,[,] permit inspection of such report by or
furnish a copy of such report to any person requesting
such inspection or copy. With respect to any report
required to be filed by May 15 of any year, such report
shall be made available for public inspection within 30
calendar days after May 15 of such year or within 30
days of the date of filing of such a report for which
an extension is granted pursuant to section 101(g). The
agency, office, Clerk, or Secretary of the Senate, as
the case may be, may require a reasonable fee to be
paid in any amount which is found necessary to recover
the cost of reproduction or mailing of such report
excluding any salary of any employee involved in such
reproduction or mailing. A copy of such report may be
furnished without charge or at a reduced charge if it
is determined that waiver or reduction of the fee is in
the public interest.
(2) * * *
(3)
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(E) This paragraph shall expire on December
31, 2017, and apply to filings through calendar
year 2017.]
* * * * * * *
[all]