Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
ABOUT IT THIS WAY, THAT HE WAS
NO POLITICS, NO DELAYS.
THE UNITED STATES.
THE SECRETARY: MR. SPEAKER.
SECRETARY.
THE SECRETARY: I AM DIRECTED BY
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES TO DELIVER TO THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES A MESSAGE IN
WRITING.
THE
CHAIR LAYS BEFORE THE HOUSE AN
ENROLLED BILL.
H.R. 1249, AN ACT TO
AMEND 35, UNITED STATES CODE,
TO PROVIDE FOR PATENT REFORM.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 8 OF RULE
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS TODAY ON
MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES ON
WHICH A RECORDED VOTE OR THE
YEAS AND NAYS ARE REQUESTED.
OR ON WHICH THE VOTE INCURS
OBJECTION UNDER CLAUSE 6 OF
RULE 20.
RECORDED VOTES ON POSTPONED
QUESTIONS WILL BE TAKEN AFTER
6:30 P.M. TODAY.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
SEEK RECOGNITION?
MR. SPEAKER, I MOVE THAT THE
HOUSE SUSPEND THE RULES AND
PASS H.R. 2076, THE
INVESTIGATIVE ASSISTANCE FOR
VIOLENT CRIMES ACT OF 2011, AS
THE
CLERK WILL REPORT THE TITLE OF
THE BILL.
NUMBER 121.
H.R. 2076, A BILL TO AMEND
TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE,
TO CLARIFY THE STATUTORY
AUTHORITY FOR THE LONGSTANDING
PRACTICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE OF PROVIDING
INVESTIGATORY ASSISTANCE ON
REQUEST OF STATE AND LOCAL
AUTHORITIES WITH RESPECT TO
CERTAIN SERIOUS VIOLENT CRIMES,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
PURSUANT TO THE RULE, THE
GENTLEMAN FROM SOUTH CAROLINA,
MR. GOWDY, AND THE GENTLEMAN
FROM MICHIGAN, MR. CONYERS,
EACH WILL CONTROL 20 MINUTES.
THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM SOUTH CAROLINA.
MR. SPEAKER, I ASK
UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT ALL
LEGISLATIVE DAYS TO REVISE AND
EXTEND THEIR REMARKS AND
INCLUDE EXTRANEOUS MATERIALS ON
H.R. 2076, AS AMENDED,
CURRENTLY UNDER CONSIDERATION.
WITHOUT OBJECTION.
MR. SPEAKER, I YIELD
MYSELF SUCH TIME AS I MAY
CONSUME.
THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
VIOLENT CRIMES THAT IMPACT
MULTIPLE VICTIMS AND MASS
SHOOTINGS IN PARTICULAR ARE
UNPREDICTABLE.
AND IN ADDITION TO SENDING
SHOCK WAVES THROUGH THE
COMMUNITIES IMPACTED OFTEN TEST
THE RESOURCES ON THE STATE AND
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
JURISDICTIONS INVOLVED.
REGRETTABLY, WITHIN OUR
LIFETIME THERE WILL BE SCORES
OF MASS SHOOTINGS RANGING FROM
RESTAURANTS TO HIGH SCHOOLS TO
UNIVERSITIES AND CHURCHES.
NO PLACE IS SAFE.
THERE ARE NO SANCTUARIES LEFT
ANY MORE, MR. SPEAKER, IN OUR
CULTURE AND DESPITE THE
TREMENDOUS TRAINING, EDUCATION
AND HARD WORK OF THE BRAVE MEN
AND WOMEN IN STATE AND LOCAL
LAW ENFORCEMENT, THESE TYPES OF
TRAGEDIES CONTEST EVEN THE MOST
WELL RESOURCED LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCIES.
NOT ONLY IS THERE AN ACT OF
CRIME SCENE WITH VICTIMS, THERE
ARE HUNDREDS OF PIECES OF
BALLISTIC EVIDENCE AND THE
GATHERING OF EVIDENCE SOMETIMES
CONTEMPORANEOUS WITH A SEARCH
OF THE FOREIGN ASSAILANT.
THERE IS COLLABORATION BETWEEN
AND AMONG LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCIES.
THIS IS TRUE AT THE LOCAL
LEVEL, THE STATE LEVEL AND
INDEED AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL.
FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCIES HAVE UNIQUE SKILLSETS,
ACCESS TO RESOURCES AND OTHER
INVESTIGATIVE TECHNIQUES THAT
CAN AND DO ASSIST SMALLER
POLICE DEPARTMENTS ON A REGULAR
BUT, MR. SPEAKER, THE CURRENT
-- CURRENTLY THE F.B.I. DOES
NOT HAVE THE SPECIFIC STATUTORY
AUTHORITY TO ASSIST IN ALL
INVESTIGATIONS.
SPECIFICALLY WITH REQUESTS TO
THE INVESTIGATION OF MASS
SHOOTINGS OR OTHER VIOLENT
CRIMES OCCURRING IN NONFEDERAL
VENUES.
H.R. 2076, THE INVESTIGATIVE
ASSISTANCE FOR VIOLENT CRIMES
ACT OF 2011 IS A COMMONSENSE
BILL THAT ALLOWS THE F.B.I. TO
PROVIDE ASSISTANT TO LOCAL AND
STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT
AUTHORITIES IF REQUESTED IN
RESPONSE TO A MASS SHOOTLE OR
OTHER MASS CASUALTY.
THIS BILL ADDRESSES WHERE THE
F.B.I. -- WHEN THE F.B.I.'S
ASKED TO ASSIST STATE OR LOCAL
AUTHORITIES WITH MASS SHOOTINGS
OR KILLINGS AT A PUBLIC PLACE
SUCH AS A SHOPPING MALL OR A
SCHOOL.
THE F.B.I. HAS TRADITIONALLY
ASSISTED STATE AND LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES, BUT
THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY
EXPLICITLY GRANTING THE F.B.I.
JURISDICTION IS LACKING.
TO BE SURE, THE F.B.I. HELPS
AND IS WILLING TO HELP, BUT THE
ABSENCE OF A SPECIFIC STATUTORY
GRANT OF JURISDICTION, EVEN
JURISDICTION BY INVITATION,
NEEDS TO BE RESOLVED.
THIS BILL IS NOT AN EXPANSION
OF FEDERAL AUTHORITY AND IT
DOES NOT EXPAND THE AUTHORITY
OF THE F.B.I.
ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE F.B.I.
MUST BE REQUESTED BY THE STATE
OR LOCAL AUTHORITY AND AGREED
TO BY FEDERAL AUTHORITIES.
THE F.B.I. WILL ONLY ASSIST
WHEN STATE AND LOCAL
COUNTERPARTS ASK FOR HELP AND
THEY AGREE TO PROVIDE IT.
THIS LEGISLATION, MR. SPEAKER,
IS SIMPLE, BUT IT IS ALSO
CRITICAL.
STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES
OFTEN LOOK TO THE F.B.I. FOR
ASSISTANCE IN HANDLING LARGE
VIOLENT CRIMES BUT THE F.B.I.
MUST LOOK TO FEDERAL LAW TO
DETERMINE WHAT AUTHORITY IT HAS
BEEN GRANTED BY CONGRESS BEFORE
IT CAN OFFER ASSISTANCE.
ACCORDINGLY, H.R. 2076 GIVES
THE F.B.I. THE SPECIFIC
AUTHORITY TO RESPOND TO
REQUESTS FOR ASSISTANCE FROM
STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
AUTHORITIES WHEN MASS KILLINGS
OR OTHER ACTS OF VIOLENCE ARE
COMMITTED OR ATTEMPTED.
H.R. 2076, MR. SPEAKER, WAS
PASSED OUT OF THE HOUSE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE BY A VOICE
VOTE WITH BROAD BIPARTISAN
THIS BILL IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY
THE F.B.I. AGENTS ASSOCIATION,
THE VOLUNTEER PROFESSIONAL
ASSOCIATION CURRENTLY
REPRESENTING OVER 20,000 ACTIVE
DUTY AND RETIRED F.B.I. SPECIAL
AGENTS.
MR. SPEAKER, I URGE MY
COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT THIS
BILL, AND I RESERVE THE BALANCE
OF MY TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM SOUTH CAROLINA
RESERVES HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM MICHIGAN IS
MR. SPEAKER, I
YIELD MYSELF SUCH TIME AS I MAY
GENTLEMAN FROM MICHIGAN IS
RECOGNIZED.
I BEGIN BY
COMMENDING MY COLLEAGUE ON
JUDICIARY, TRAY GOWDY, FOR
INTRO-- TREY GOWDY, FOR
INTRODUCING THIS BILL AND BEING
THE SPONSOR OF IT, AND I AGREE
WITH EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN
SAID.
I'LL INSERT MY REMARKS.
BUT I'D LIKE TO ASK MY
COLLEAGUE ABOUT A SHOOTING I
READ ABOUT JUST TODAY.
IT WASN'T A MASS KILLING, BUT
SOME OF THESE THINGS ARE SO
AWFUL.
A 17-YEAR-OLD YOUNG GIRL
ATHLETE SHOT MYSTERIOUSLY.
DO YOU SEE THAT THAT MIGHT BE A
ROLE THAT WE MAY WANT THE
F.B.I. TO BE ABLE TO INTERVENE
IN AND IF THEY ARE INVITED AS
WELL?
DOES
THE GENTLEMAN FROM MICHIGAN
YIELD TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM
SOUTH CAROLINA?
YES, I COULD AND I
DO.
I THANK THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MICHIGAN, AND I
WOULD TELL THE DISTINGUISHED
FORMER CHAIRMAN OF JUDICIARY, I
AM NOT AWARE OF A SINGLE
INSTANCE IN MY 16 YEARS AS A
PROSECUTOR WHEN THE F.B.I. WAS
ASKED TO PROVIDE HELP AND
DIDN'T DO SO.
AND I KNOW THAT MY FRIEND FROM
MICHIGAN WOULD WANT THE F.B.I.
TO BE ON SOLID LEGAL FOOTING.
SO WITH RESPECT TO THE SHOOTING
THAT YOU'RE REFERENCING, AND I
FEAR I AM FAMILIAR WITH THAT
SHOOTING.
I BELIEVE I READ ABOUT IT.
THE TRAGIC LOSS OF LIFE OF A
WONDERFUL HIGH SCHOOL YOUNG
LADY WHO HAPPENED TO BE A
TREMENDOUS BASKETBALL PLAYER,
THE F.B.I. AGENTS THAT I KNOW
WOULD GLADLY HELP IN THAT CASE.
IF THE GENTLEMAN FROM MICHIGAN
WANTED TO PROVIDE A WAY FOR THE
BUREAU TO HELP WHENEVER
REQUESTED, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO
WORK ON THAT WITH HIM.
WELL, I THANK THE
GENTLEMAN, AND I THINK THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT OUR COMMITTEE
MIGHT WELL WANT TO LOOK INTO
BECAUSE THE GENERAL IMPRESSION
IS THAT CRIME IS GOING DOWN.
I ASSUME THAT'S ACCURATE.
BUT IN SOME PLACES IT ISN'T.
AND I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR
MAKING SURE THAT THIS
ASSISTANCE HAS -- FROM THE
F.B.I. HAS STATUTORY BASIS
WHICH IT HASN'T ENJOYED UNTIL
NOW AND I JOIN WITH HIM IN
PROVIDING THIS ASSISTANCE AS A
MATTER OF LAW.
AND I URGE THE PASSAGE OF THE
MEASURE AND I YIELD BACK THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MICHIGAN YIELDS
BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM SOUTH
CAROLINA.
MR. SPEAKER, I THANK
THE GENTLEMAN FROM MICHIGAN,
AND I AM PREPARED TO YIELD THE
REMAINDER OF MY TIME IF -- AND
WOULD ALLOW THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MICHIGAN TO GO FIRST IF -- IF
HE WOULD LIKE AND I WILL YIELD
BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME IF
HE'S INCLINED TO DO SO.
ALL
TIME HAVING BEEN YIELDED, THE
QUESTION IS WILL THE HOUSE
SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS H.R.
2076, AS AMENDED.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR,
AFFIRMATIVE, THE RULES ARE
SUSPENDED, THE BILL IS PASSED,
AND WITHOUT OBJECTION --
MR. SPEAKER, I ASK
FOR A RECORDED VOTE.
DOES
THE GENTLEMAN ASK FOR THE YEAS
AND NAYS?
YES.
THE
YEAS AND NAYS ARE REQUESTED.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF TAKING
THIS VOTE BY THE YEAS AND NAYS
AND REMAIN STANDING UNTIL
COUNTED.
A SUFFICIENT NUMBER HAVING
ORDERED.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 8 OF RULE
20, FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON THIS
QUESTION WILL BE POSTPONED.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
RISE?
MR. SPEAKER, I MOVE THAT THE
HOUSE SUSPEND THE RULES AND
PASS H.R. 2633, THE APPEAL TIME
-- COLLARIFICATION ACT OF 2011,
AS AMENDED.
THE
CLERK WILL REPORT THE TITLE OF
THE BILL.
H.R. 2633, A BILL TO
AMEND TITLE 28, UNITED STATES
CODE, TO CLARIFY THE TIME LIMIT
FOR APPEALS IN CIVIL CASES TO
WHICH UNITED STATES OFFICERS OR
EMPLOYEES ARE PARTIES.
PURSUANT TO THE RULE, THE
GENTLEMAN FROM NORTH CAROLINA,
MR. COBLE, AND THE GENTLEMAN
FROM MICHIGAN, MR. CONYERS,
EACH WILL CONTROL 20 MINUTES.
THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE
I THANK THE SPEAKER.
MR. SPEAKER, I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THAT ALL MEMBERS MAY
HAVE FIVE LEGISLATIVE DAYS TO
REVISE AND EXTEND THEIR REMARKS
AND INCLUDE EXTRANEOUS
MATERIALS ON H.R. 2633, AS
AMENDED, CURRENTLY UNDER
CONSIDERATION.
WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
MR. SPEAKER, I YIELD
MYSELF SUCH TIME AS I MAY
CONSUME.
THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
I WANT TO THANK THE
RANKING MEMBER OF THE COURT
SUBCOMMITTEE, MR. COHEN,
TENNESSEE, AND THE RANKING
MEMBER OF THE FULL COMMITTEE,
MR. CONYERS, THE DISTINGUISHED
GENTLEMAN FROM MICHIGAN FOR
HAVING CO-SPONSORED THE BILL.
I INTRODUCED H.R. 2633 AT THE
BEHEST OF THE UNITED STATES
JUDICIAL CONFERENCE IN
ADDRESSING A SMALL PROBLEM THAT
MUST BE FIXED OR ATTENDED TO
YEAR.
UNDER THE EXISTING RULES
ENABLING ACT, THE JUDICIAL
CONFERENCE MAY DEVELOP CHANGES
TO EXISTING FEDERAL RULES OR
PROCEDURE AND EVIDENCE.
THE SUPREME COURT SMITS ANY
AGREED UPON AMENDMENTS TO
CONGRESS NO LATER THAN MAY 1 OF
A GIVEN CALENDAR YEAR.
THE CHANGES TAKES EFFECT ON
DECEMBER 1 UNLESS CONGRESS
INTERVENES DURING THE INTERIM.
THIS YEAR AS PART OF ITS RULES
PACKAGE THE SUPREME COURT
SUBMITTED PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
TO APPELLATE RULE 4 THAT
CLARIFIES THE TREATMENT OF THE
TIME TO APPEAL IN CIVIL CASES
INVOLVING A UNITED STATES
OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE.
BECAUSE THE TIME TO APPEAL IN A
CIVIL CASE IS SET NOT ONLY BY
APPELLATE RULE 4 BUT ALSO BY
SECTION 2107 OF TITLE 28 OF THE
U.S. CODE.
THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON
APPELLATE RULES HAS PROPOSED
THAT THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE
SEEK LEGISLATION TO MAKE THE
SAME CLARIFYING CHANGE TO
SECTION 2107.
APPELLATE RULE 4 AND SECTION
2107 CURRENTLY PROVIDES THAT
THE TIME TO APPEAL IS 30 DAYS
FOR MOST CIVIL CASES BUT THAT
THE APPEAL TIME FOR ALL PARTIES
IS 60 DAYS WHEN THE PARTIES TO
THE CASE INCLUDE THE UNITED
A UNITED STATES OFFICER
OR A UNITED STATES AGENCIES.
-- AGENCY.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT CURRENT LAW
IS NOT CLEAR CONCERNING THE
APPLICABILITY OF THE LONGER
PERIOD IN CASES WHICH THE
FEDERAL PARTY IS A UNITED
STATES OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE SUED
IN AN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY.
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS IN H.R.
2633 SIMPLY CLARIFY THAT THE
LONGER PERIOD APPLIES TO SUCH
AN INDIVIDUAL OR EMPLOYEE JUST
AS IT DOES TO THE UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT OR UNITED STATES
AGENCY.
A LAWSUIT AGAINST A FEDERAL
OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE UNDER THESE
CONDITIONS REQUIRE THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT TO DECIDE WHETHER TO
REPRESENT THAT INDIVIDUAL.
THIS REQUIRES TIME AS THE
GOVERNMENT MUST EVALUATE THE
CASE, DETERMINE WHETHER AN
APPEAL SHOULD BE TAKEN AND
ULTIMATELY OBTAIN THE SOLICITOR
GENERAL'S APPROVAL.
THE PROPOSED REVISIONS TO
APPELLATE RULE 4 ARE ON A GLIDE
PATH TO DECEMBER 1.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO PROMOTE THE
CONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE RULES
AND TITLE 28 BY ENSURING THAT
WE ENACT H.R. 2633 WHICH ALSO
TAKES EFFECT ON DECEMBER 1.
THE ONLY CHANGE IN THE BILL AS
REPORTED BY OUR COMMITTEE IS THE
INCLUSION OF, QUOTE, FINDINGS,
CLOSED QUOTE, LANGUAGE DEVELOPED
BY THE SENATE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE.
TO CLARIFY THAT THE 60-DAY
PERIOD APPEALS TO CASES
INVOLVING ARTICLE 1 LITIGANTS,
INCLUDING MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS.
THIS DISH IS ENTIRELY CONSISTENT
WITH THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF
THE BILL AND IS FULLY SUPPORTED
BY THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE.
THIS WILL ALSO HELP TO EXPEDITE
PASSAGE OF H.R. 2633 BY THE
OTHER BODY.
MR. SPEAKER, THIS IS A
BIPARTISAN LEGISLATION DEVOID OF
CONTROVERSY, IT TREATS FEDERAL
LITIGANTS AS FAIRLY UNDER THE
APELL ANT RULES AND AS ASSISTS
THE COURTS IN INTERPRETING THOSE
RULES.
I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT
H.R. 2633 AND I RESERVE THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM NORTH CAROLINA
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM MICHIGAN.
MR. SPEAKER, I RISE
TO CLAIM AS MUCH TIME AS I MAY
CONSUME.
THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
I BEGIN BY
CONGRATULATING HOWARD COBLE,
NORTH CAROLINA SENIOR MEMBER OF
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, WHO IS
THE SPONSOR OF THIS BILL AND
AGREE WITH HIM ENTIRELY.
IT WAS REPORTED BY OUR COMMITTEE
BY VOICE VOTE AND NO AMENDMENT,
HIS EXPLANATION IS THOROUGH AND
I APPRECIATE HIS INCLINATION FOR
DETAIL WHICH HAD US MAKE THIS
IMPORTANT MODIFICATION OF APPEAL
TIME CLARIFICATION AND I WOULD
AT THIS POINT, MR. SPEAKER,
SUBMIT MY STATEMENT FOR THE
RECORD AND YIELD BACK THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION, SO ORDERED AND THE
THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM NORTH
I THANK MY FRIEND
FROM MICHIGAN FOR HIS KIND
WORDS.
THANK YOU, JOHN.
AND, MR. SPEAKER, I ALSO YIELD
BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.
ALL
TIME HAVING BEEN YIELDED, THE
QUESTION IS WILL THE HOUSE
SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS H.R.
2633 AS AMENDED.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR --
MR. SPEAKER, I ASK
-- I ASK FOR THE YEAS AND NAYS
ON THIS MEASURE AS WELL.
THE
YEAS AND NAYS ARE REQUESTED.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF TAKING
WILL RISE AND REMAIN STANDING
UNTIL COUNTED.
A SUFFICIENT NUMBER HAVING
ARISEN, THE YEAS AND NAYS ARE
ORDERED.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 8 OF RULE 20,
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON THIS
QUESTION WILL BE POSTPONED.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM NORTH CAROLINA
SEEK RECOGNITION?
MR. SPEAKER, I MOVE
THAT THE HOUSE SUSPEND THE RULES
AND PASS H.R. 1059 TO PROTECT
THE SAFETY OF JUDGES BY
EXTENDING THE AUTHORITY OF THE
JUDICIAL CONFERENCE TO REDACT
SENSITIVE INFORMATION CONTAINED
IN THEIR RESPECTIVE FINANCIAL
AND DISCLOSURE REPORTS AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES.
THE
CLERK WILL REPORT THE TITLE OF
THE BILL.
UNION CALENDAR NUMBER
123, 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.
PURSUANT TO THE RULE, THE
GENTLEMAN FROM NORTH CAROLINA,
MR. COBLE, AND THE GENTLEMAN
FROM MICHIGAN, MR. CONYERS, EACH
WILL CONTROL 20 MINUTES.
THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM NORTH CAROLINA.
I THANK THE SPEAKER
AND, MR. SPEAKER, I ASK
UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT ALL
MEMBERS MAY HAVE FIVE
LEGISLATIVE DAYS WITHIN WHICH TO
REVISE AND EXTEND THEIR REMARKS
AND HE INCLUDE EXTRANEOUS
MATERIAL -- AND INCLUDE
EXTRANEOUS MATERIALS ON H.R.
1059 CURRENTLY UNDER
CONSIDERATION.
OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
MYSELF SUCH TIME AS I MAY
CONSUME.
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
I SUPPORT H.R. 1059
AND I AGAIN THANK MR. CONYERS,
THE DISTINGUISHED GENTLEMAN FROM
IT.
I ALSO THANK MR. COHEN, THE
DISTINGUISHED GENTLEMAN FROM
TENNESSEE, MR. JOHNSON, THE
DISTINGUISHED GENTLEMAN --
GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA, FOR
HAVING SERVED AS CO-SPONSORS.
THIS PROMOTES AN IMPORTANT GOAL
THAT IS PROVIDING SECURITY FOR
FEDERAL JUDGES.
UNDER ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT ACT,
JUDGES AND OTHER HIGH LEVEL
JUDICIAL BRANCH OFFICIALS MUST
FILE ANNUAL FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE
REPORTS.
THIS REQUIREMENT INCREASES
PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN GOVERNMENT
OFFICIALS AND BETTER ENABLES 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 ALSO ENACTED
LEGISLATION THAT ALLOWS THE
JUDICIAL CONFERENCE TO REDACT
STATUTORILY REQUIRED INFORMATION
IN A FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REPORT
WHETHER RELEASE OF SUCH
INFORMATION COULD POSSIBLY
ENDANGER THE FILING 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 REQUESTS TO
SCHOOL ON A REGULAR BY A -- OR
GOES TO SCHOOL ON A REMEMBER --
ON A REGULAR BASIS.
TARGETING JUDGES FOR HARASSMENT
HAVE ALSO BEEN KNOWN TO -- OR
INDIVIDUALS TARGETING JUSTICES
FOR HARASSMENT HAVE ALSO BEEN
KNOWN TO FILE FALSE LEANS ON
PROPERTIES OWNED BY JUDGES AND
THEIR FAMILIES.
HARASSERS COULD USE FINANCIAL
EXPOSURE REPORTS TO MORE EASILY
IDENTIFY SUCH PROPERTY.
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 OF THE GOVERNMENT ACT.
THE COMMITTEE MONITORS THE
RELEASE OF FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE
REPORTS TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE
WITH THE STATUTE.
IN CONSULTATION WITH THE U.S.
MARSHALL SERVICE, THE COMMITTEE
ALSO REVIEWS AND APPROVES OR
DISAPPROVES ANY REQUEST FOR THE
REDAX OF STATUTORILY MANDATED
INFORMATION WHERE THE FILER
BELIEVES THE RELEASE OF THE
INFORMATION COULD ENDANGER THE
FILING OR HIS OR HER FAMILY.
UNDER THE REGULATIONS, NO
REDACKS WILL BE GRANTED WITHOUT
A CLEAR NEXUS BETWEEN A SECURITY
RISK AND THE INFORMATION FOR
WHICH A RADACTION IS SOUGHT.
THE LAW HAS WORKED WELL THROUGH
THE YEARS AND HAS BEEN
RE-AUTHORIZED TWICE SINCE 2001.
BUT IT EXPIRED AT THE END OF
THIS CALENDAR YEAR IF WE FAIL TO
ACT, AN OUTCOME THAT IS
UNACCEPTABLE.
LAST YEAR THE MARSHAL SERVICE
INVESTIGATED AND LINESED ALMOST
1,400 THREATS -- ANALYZED ALMOST
$1,400 THREATS TO JUDICIAL
OFFICIALS, NEARLY THREE TIMES AS
MANY THREATS RECORDED IN 2003.
AND THERE WERE MORE THAN 3,900
INCIDENTS AND ARRESTS AT U.S.
COURT FACILITIES IN 2010.
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES ARE AN
IMPORTANT PART OF MAINTAINING AN
OPEN AND TRANSPARENT GOVERNMENT,
MR. SPEAKER.
BUT GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY
SHOULD NOT COME AT THE COST OF
PERSONAL SECURITY FOR GOVERNMENT
OFFICIALS.
JUDGES AND OTHER JUDICIAL
EMPLOYEES PERFORM IMPORTANT WORK
THAT IS INTEGRAL TO OUR
DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT.
IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE
INTEGRITY OF OUR DEMOCRACY WE
MUST PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF
OUR COURTS.
AND THAT MEANS ENSURING THE
SECURITY OF JUDGES AND OTHER
JUDICIAL EMPLOYEES FROM
INTIMIDATION AND THREATS.
IN CONCLUSION THERE'S NEW
EVIDENCE THAT THE LAW IS BEING
ABUSED, I SUPPORT H.R. 1059 AND
URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO EXTEND THE
REDUCTION -- REDACTION AUTHORITY
PERMANENTLY.
TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM NORTH CAROLINA
RESERVES HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM MICHIGAN.
I RISE TO YIELD
MYSELF AS MUCH TIME AS I MAY
CONSUME.
AND THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
I WANT TO COMMEND THE CHAIRMAN
OF THE JUDICIARY, LAMAR SMITH,
AS WELL AS THE SUBCOMMITTEE
CHAIR, MR. COBLE, FOR SWIFTLY
MOVING THIS THROUGH THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
I THINK IT'S BEEN EXPLAINED, THE
REDACTION OF SENSITIVE
INFORMATION FOR THE BENEFIT OF
MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY IS
OBVIOUS AND IMPORTANT AND I AM
HOPING THAT WITH MY CONSULTATION
WITH THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, WE WOULD BE
ABLE TO MAKE THE PERMANENT
FEATURE THAT HOWARD COBLE HAS
DISCUSSED, A PERMANENT ONE AND A
PART OF THE LAW AS IT NOW
EXISTS.
I WILL PUT MY STATEMENT IN THE
RECORD AT THIS TIME AND YIELD
BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION, AND THE GENTLEMAN
YIELDS BACK HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM NORTH
CAROLINA.
MR. SPEAKER, I AS
WELL YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF
MY TIME.
ALL
TIME HAVING BEEN YIELDED, THE
QUESTION IS WILL THE HOUSE
SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS H.R.
1059.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR, 2/3
OF THOSE VOTING HAVING RESPONDED
IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, THE RULES
ARE SUSPENDED, THE BILL IS
PASSED AND WITHOUT OBJECTION --
MR. SPEAKER, I
REQUEST THE YEAS AND NAYS ON
THIS VOTE AS WELL.
THE
YEAS AND NAYS ARE REQUESTED.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF TAKING
THIS VOTE BY THE YEAS AND NAYS
WILL RISE AND REMAIN STANDING
UNTIL COUNTED.
A SUFFICIENT NUMBER HAVING
ARISEN, THE YEAS AND NAYS ARE
ORDERED.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 8 OF RULE 20,
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON THIS
QUESTION WILL BE POSTPONED.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 12-A OF RULE
1 THE CHAIR DECLARES THE HOUSE
IN RECESS UNTIL APPROXIMATELY