F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 863) to provide grants to ensure increased accountability for juvenile offenders, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, today the House considers a bipartisan bill designed to improve the juvenile justice system in America. H.R. 863, as amended, was favorably reported out of the Committee on the Judiciary by voice vote. The bill authorizes the Department of Justice to award up to $500 million a year for the next 3 fiscal years to States and localities that agree to implement a system of graduated sanctions for juvenile delinquency. Such a system imposes sanctions on juvenile offenders for every delinquent act they commit, from the very first act, and increases the intensity of the sanctions with the severity of the offense. This bill would replace the current unauthorized block grant program that was created in the fiscal year 1999 appropriation bill for the Departments of Commerce, Justice and State. The block grant program of H.R. 863 is more flexible for the States than the current unauthorized grant program. This bill does not require a grant recipient to spend a certain percentage of the funds on specified purposes. This is not a one-size-fits-all program. Rather, the States that qualify by implementing graduated sanctions may use the grant money where they need it to improve their juvenile justice systems. Further, the new block grant programs would not place a mandate on the States. A State or locality may qualify even if its system of graduated sanctions is discretionary. However, those juvenile courts that do not impose graduated sanctions must report at least annually to the applicable State or locality as to why graduated sanctions were not imposed in all such cases. This bill affords States and localities the flexibility and discretion necessary to improve their juvenile justice systems. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the subcommittee chair, for an un-sound byte.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2336) to make permanent the authority to redact financial disclosure statements of judicial employees and judicial officers.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2336, the bill under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2336 and urge the House to adopt the measure. This bill will make permanent the authority of the U.S. Judicial Conference 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 risk 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 a redaction of statutorily mandated information where the release of the information could endanger a filer. In the year 2000, the committee noted, first, 13 financial disclosure reports were wholly redacted because the judge was under a specific and active security threat and, second, only 140 judges' reports were partially redacted due to specific or general threats. The purpose of the annual 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, this 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 that information could endanger the filer or his or her family. This is a good bill. It enjoys bipartisan support. There is no known opposition. I encourage the House to support the measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The staff of the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, with whom it has been a pleasure to work, gave several suggestions on how to amend the Senate bill to my staff, many of which are incorporated in the amendment in the nature of a substitute, the most important of which is a 3-year sunset with a 2-year extender which was the idea of the gentleman from Michigan and was a good one and is incorporated in the self-executing amendment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, none of the provisions in what we are considering today are new and a surprise. The base bill is the bill that was produced by the other body. That has been out there for over a week. There have been some modifications made to this bill in an attempt to avoid a conference. Many of the modifications were made at the request of the minority party in the House of Representatives. Now, I agree that this process is not an ideal process and this is not a perfect compromise, but there are a number of House provisions in this bill, none of which are a surprise that was written in the middle of the night. The bill does not violate the Constitution. It protects our vital fourth amendment rights; and with a clear and present danger facing our country, I believe it is imperative that we act expeditiously. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is correct. The report will follow this bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Bryant).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith). (Mr. SMITH of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)