[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 162 (Thursday, October 19, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15346-S15347]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. HEFLIN:
  S. 1344. A bill to repeal the requirement relating to specific 
statutory authorization for increases in judicial salaries, to provide 
for automatic annual increases for judicial salaries, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


             judicial cost-of-living increases legislation

  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I am today introducing legislation to 
address the need of providing annual, automatic cost-of-living 
increases for the Federal Judiciary. This legislation would achieve two 
goals. First, it would repeal Section 140 of Public Law 97-42 (28 
U.S.C. Sec. 461 note) a provision which was enacted in a continuing 
appropriation resolution in 1981. Second, it would delink Federal 
judges from Members of Congress and executive schedule employees of the 
executive branch with respect to receiving cost of living adjustments 
and would guarantee that Federal judges would automatically receive 
such annual adjustments, assuming economic conditions so justified.
  Let me share with my colleagues some of the history relating to 
Section 140, and the reasons why I think it should be repealed. The 
Federal Salary Act of 1967 established a commission on executive, 
legislative and judicial salaries, which was popularly referred to as 
the ``Quadrennial Commission.'' The purpose of this commission was to 
review executive schedule positions (federal judges, Members of 
congress, and high ranking officials in all branches) and to make 
recommendations on how salaries should be adjusted.
  In 1975 Congress enacted the Executive Salary Cost-of-Living 
Adjustment Act, which provided, for the first time, for annual cost-of-
living adjustments for executive schedule officials. This statute was 
designed to give Federal judges, Members of Congress, and other high 
ranking officials the same annual adjustment that was given to other 
Federal employees. In October 1975, these executive schedule officials 
received a cost-of-living adjustment; however, from 1977-1981, Congress 
withheld cost-of-living adjustments for these officials. In the case of 
United States v. Will, 449 US 200 (1980), the Supreme Court issued a 
ruling which resulted in an increase in the salaries for Federal 
judges.
  Two years later, Congress adopted an appropriation for Fiscal Year 
1982, which provided in Section 140 that judges would not automatically 
receive an increase under the Executive Salary Cost-of-Living 
Adjustment Act, ``except as specifically authorized by act of 
Congress.'' The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 restored cost-of-living 
adjustments and amended the Adjustment Act, to provide for a method of 
computing annual pay adjustments for Federal judges and other executive 
schedule employees.

  Cost-of-living adjustments were provided for Federal judges in 
calendar years 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993. There have been no cost-of-
living adjustments for Federal judges in 1994, 1995, nor it would 
appear in 1996. With regard to 1996, it appears that the Treasury, 
Postal Service and General Government Appropriations bill will again 
deny a cost-of-living adjustment for Federal judges since we are 
proposing to deny ourselves such an adjustment and under current law, 
adjustments for Federal judges are linked to adjustments for Members of 
Congress.
  Having reviewed this history, it is my belief that Congress should 
take action to not only repeal Section 140, which currently bars cost-
of-living adjustments in pay for Federal judges, except as specifically 
authorized by Congress, but to also delink such adjustments from those 
of Members of Congress and other executive schedule employees of the 
executive branch.
  Delinkage will remove Federal judges from the highly charged 
political atmosphere surrounding cost-of-living adjustments. This 
legislation does not seek to raise judicial pay, but is in an 

[[Page S 15347]]
attempt to avoid a diminution in judicial compensation by allowing 
salaries to keep pace with increases in the cost of living.
  Remember, judges are not like Members of Congress or high ranking 
executive schedule employees of the executive branch of the Federal 
Government. Members of Congress come and go, and likewise, executive 
schedule employees are high ranking political employees such as Cabinet 
secretaries, deputy secretaries, assistant secretaries, and deputy 
assistant secretaries, etc. They, too, being short-term employees, come 
and go from the private sector to the public sector.
  Federal judges are different in this regard. They make a lifetime 
commitment to public service as Federal judges. They should be able to 
plan their financial futures based on the reasonable expectation that 
their compensation will at least keep even with annual cost-of-living 
increases.
  I think it is imperative to remove the judicial pay process from the 
political arena. In the middle of the 1980's, this issue was widely 
discussed on television talk shows and various news programs, and it 
was very damaging to attracting top quality individuals to serve as 
Federal judges. We also know that there were a number of resignations 
in the Federal judiciary in the 1980's, because it was becoming very 
difficult to attract top individuals to serve on the Federal bench.
  I believe that we must continue to attract and retain judges from all 
walks of life who have demonstrated superior legal skills whether they 
have served as State judges, private practitioners, academicians, 
prosecutors, or public defenders. If we fail to deal with this matter, 
we will soon attract only those judges who are independently wealthy 
and do not have to worry about providing for their families on a 
Federal judiciary salary.
  I think this is unwise, and I hope that Congress will have the 
courage to repeal section 140 of Public Law 97-92 and further delink 
their cost-of-living adjustments from Members of Congress and executive 
schedule employees, thereby removing this matter from the political 
process once and for all.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1344

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. JUDICIAL COST-OF-LIVING INCREASES.

       (a) Repeal of Statutory Requirement Relating to Judicial 
     Salaries.--Section 140 of the resolution entitled ``A Joint 
     Resolution making further continuing appropriations for the 
     fiscal year 1982, and for other purposes.'', approved 
     December 15, 1981 (Public Law 97-92; 95 Stat. 1200; 28 U.S.C. 
     461 note) is repealed.
       (b) Automatic Annual Increases.--Section 461(a) of title 
     28, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Effective on the first day of the first applicable 
     pay period beginning on or after January 1 of each calendar 
     year, each salary rate which is subject to adjustment under 
     this section shall be adjusted by an amount, rounded to the 
     nearest multiple of $100 (or if midway between multiples of 
     $100, to the next higher multiple of $100) equal to the 
     percentage of such salary rate which corresponds to the most 
     recent percentage change in the Employment Cost Index, as 
     determined under section 704(a)(1) of the Ethics Reform Act 
     of 1989.''.
                                 ______