[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 54 (Thursday, April 3, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4839-S4841]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Kerry):
  S. 787. A bill to provide for the fair treatment of the Federal 
judiciary relating to compensation and benefits, and to instill greater 
public confidence in the Federal courts; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.

[[Page S4840]]

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Senator Kerry and I are pleased to 
introduce the ``Fair and Independent Judiciary Act of 2003.'' This 
legislation arises from our belief that we must remain steadfast in our 
commitment to preserving the vitality of our third branch of 
government. Ensuring a fair and independent judiciary is critical to 
preserving the system of checks and balances established in our 
Constitution. The Fair and Independent Judiciary Act includes measures 
to respond to the shortfall in real judicial compensation, to repeal 
the link of judicial pay to congressional pay, to improve survivorship 
benefits, and to instill greater public confidence in our courts.
  The National Commission on Public Service, a blue-ribbon panel of 
experts headed by Paul Volcker, recently concluded that Congress' 
budgetary treatment of this co-equal branch threatens its ability to 
perform its essential mission. This legislation addresses a problem 
that the Chief Justice has repeatedly brought to our attention--the 
decline in real judicial salaries.
  As a member of both the Senate Judiciary Committee and the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and the 
Judiciary, I have worked hard to help preserve a fair and independent 
judiciary. I was very disappointed that the Continuing Resolutions 
approved by Congress failed to give the Federal judiciary a cost-of-
living adjustment, COLA, for fiscal year 2003.
  Earlier this year, Senator Hatch and I were joined by Senator DeWine 
and Senator Specter to cosponsor legislation in the Senate to provide 
the Federal judiciary with a COLA for the present fiscal year. House 
Judiciary Chairman Sensenbrenner was joined by that Committee's Ranking 
Democratic Member, Congressman Conyers, and others to introduce 
identical legislation. Congress eventually passed a measure to give the 
Judiciary their cost of living adjustment for fiscal year 2003 but this 
effort failed to compensate the judiciary for many other previously 
skipped COLAs.
  The Fair and Independent Judiciary Act would correct the earlier 
failures to provide COLAs and prevent this situation from happening 
again.
  It is important to put our budgetary treatment of this co-equal 
branch in historical context. In 1975, Congress enacted the Executive 
Salary Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act, intended to give judges, Members 
of Congress and other high-ranking Executive Branch officials automatic 
COLAs as accorded other Federal employees unless rejected by Congress. 
In 1981, Congress enacted Section 140 of Public Law 97-92, mandating 
specific congressional action to give COLAs to judges.
  Five times in the last decade Congress failed to provide the 
Judiciary with a COLA. We believe that this treatment was unfair to the 
judiciary and that we should restore their salaries to what they would 
be had the COLAs been granted. In order to have their salaries reflect 
the current cost of living we should unlink the salaries of Members of 
Congress and Members of the Judiciary by repealing Section 140.
  In their thorough report, the Volcker Commission recommended that 
Congress unlink judicial salaries from those of Members of Congress. 
The Commission explained that due to ``the reluctance of members of 
Congress to risk the disapproval of their constituents . . . Congress 
has regularly permitted salaries to fall substantially behind cost-of-
living increases.'' Urgent Business for America: Revitalizing the 
Federal Government for the 21st Century, January 2003, Recommendation 
10. Therefore, the Commission found that ``executive and judicial 
salaries must be determined by procedures that tie them to the needs of 
the government, not the career-related political exigencies of members 
of Congress.''
  The Fair and Independent Judiciary Act would restore the skipped cost 
of living adjustments that occurred in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999 and 2002 
so that the salaries of our judges and justices are not outpaced by 
inflation.
  Chief Justice Rehnquist has called judicial pay ``the most pressing 
issue'' facing the courts.
  We look forward to Senate consideration of the Fair and Independent 
Judiciary Act to restore previously skipped cost of living adjustments 
for the Justices and judges of the United States. We hope we can all 
work together to preserve the vitality of our third branch of 
government and to instill even greater confidence in our federal 
courts.
  I ask unanimous consent that the January 6, 2003 editorial from the 
Washington Post, and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill and additional material was 
ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

                         Mr. Rehnquist's Pleas

       Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist made two pleas in his 
     year-end report. Neither is much of a surprise, because on 
     both judicial salaries and the process by which judges get 
     nominated and confirmed Mr. Rehnquist has spoken before. Yet 
     familiarity should not obscure the importance of the 
     subjects. The chief justice is correct, and the failure year 
     after year of the political branches to remedy the problems 
     of which he complains is harmful.
       Mr. Rehnquist once again stressed that the need to increase 
     judicial salaries is ``the most pressing issue'' facing the 
     courts. There is something demeaning about the chief justice 
     of the United States having to beg for the same cost-of-
     living adjustments for judges that other federal employees 
     get as a matter of course. Congress's frequent failure in 
     recent years to increase judicial compensation contravenes 
     the promise it made in 1989, when it banned judges from 
     making outside income and promised regular raises in 
     exchange. Between 1969 and 2000, according to one study, real 
     salaries for lower-court judges declined by 25 percent. And 
     while judges got a raise last year, this year's cost-of-
     living increase is, Mr. Rehnquist notes, very much in doubt.
       The problem is that Congress has irrationally linked 
     judicial pay to the salaries of members of Congress, who face 
     a political problem whenever they seek to jack up their own 
     paychecks. The judges end up hostage to congressional 
     cowardice. This disparity between their salaries and other 
     lawyer compensation is enormous and growing. This encourages 
     judges to leave the bench, and provides a substantial 
     disincentive for first-rate people to become federal judges 
     in the first place.
       Mr. Rehnquist also gave a timely reminder that the judicial 
     nominations process needs work. The chief justice is one of 
     the few people who has advocated for a reasonable process 
     irrespective of which party controls the presidency or the 
     Senate. So Mr. Rehnquist speaks with unusual moral authority 
     on this subject. And while he notes approvingly the 100 
     judges the 107th Congress confirmed, he warns that the 
     problem has not gone away. Having unified government may 
     temporarily ease the vacancy problem, he writes, but `there 
     will come a time when [unified government] is not the case, 
     and the judiciary will again suffer the delays of a drawn-out 
     confirmation process.'' Mr. Rehnquist rightly urged that the 
     political branches use this respite to ``fix the underlying 
     problems that have bogged down the . . . process for so many 
     years.'' On both pay and nominations, one can only wonder how 
     many more years the chief justice will have to repeat himself 
     before reason prevails.

                                 S. 787

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Fair and Independent Federal 
     Judiciary Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. SALARY ADJUSTMENTS.

       (a) Restoration of Statutory Cost-of-Living Adjustments.--
     The annual salaries for justices and judges are the 
     following:
       (1) Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, $211,300.
       (2) Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, $202,100.
       (3) Judges, Court of Appeals, $174,600.
       (4) Judges, Court of Military Appeals, $174,600.
       (5) Judges, District Court, $164,700.
       (6) Judges, Court of Federal Claims, $164,700.
       (7) Judges, Court of International Trade, $164,700.
       (8) Judges, Tax Court, $164,700.
       (9) Judges, Bankruptcy, $151,524.
       (b) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on the 
     first day of the first applicable pay period beginning on or 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. REPEAL OF ANNUAL CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION FOR COST 
                   OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT.

       Section 140 of Public Law 97-92 (28 U.S.C. 461 note) is 
     repealed.

     SEC. 4. SURVIVOR BENEFITS UNDER JUDICIAL SYSTEM AND OTHER 
                   SYSTEMS.

       (a) Creditable Years of Service.--Section 376 of title 28, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (k)(3), by striking the colon through 
     ``this section''; and
       (2) in subsection (r), by striking the colon through 
     ``other annuity''.
       (b) Notification Period for Survivor Annuity Coverage.--
       (1) In general.--Section 376 (a)(1) of title 28, United 
     States Code, is amended in the matter following subparagraph 
     (G) by striking ``six months'' and inserting ``1 year''.
       (2) Effective date.--This subsection shall take effect on 
     the date of enactment of this Act and apply only to written 
     notifications

[[Page S4841]]

     received by the Director of the Administrative Office of the 
     United States Courts after the dates described under clause 
     (i) or (ii) in the matter following subparagraph (G) of 
     section 376 (a)(1) of title 28, United States Code.

     SEC. 5. CITIZENS' COMMISSION ON PUBLIC SERVICE AND 
                   COMPENSATION.

       (a) Appointments.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the President shall appoint members to 
     the Citizens' Commission on Public Service and Compensation 
     under section 225 of the Federal Salary Act of 1967 (2 U.S.C. 
     351 et seq.).
       (2) Membership.--Section 225(b) of the Federal Salary Act 
     of 1967 (2 U.S.C. 352) is amended--
       (A) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) The Commission shall be composed of 11 members, who 
     shall be appointed from private life by the President. No 
     more than 6 members of the Commission may be affiliated with 
     the same political party.'';
       (B) by striking paragraph (4); and
       (C) by redesignating paragraphs (5) through (8) as 
     paragraphs (4) through (7), respectively.
       (3) Quadrennial application.--Section 225(b)(8)(B) of the 
     Federal Salary Act of 1967 (2 U.S.C. 352(8)(B)), is amended 
     in the first sentence by striking ``1993'' each place that 
     term appears and inserting ``2006'' in each such place.
       (b) Report.--The Citizens' Commission on Public Service and 
     Compensation shall prepare a report in accordance with 
     section 225 of the Federal Salary Act of 1967 (2 U.S.C. 351 
     et seq.) with respect to fiscal year 2003 and every fourth 
     fiscal year thereafter.

     SEC. 6. JUDICIAL EDUCATION FUND.

       (a) Establishment.--Chapter 42 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 630. Judicial Education Fund

       ``(a) In this section, the term--
       ``(1) `institution of higher education' has the meaning 
     given under section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a));
       ``(2) `private judicial seminar'--
       ``(A) means a seminar, symposia, panel discussion, course, 
     or a similar event that provides continuing legal education 
     to judges; and
       ``(B) does not include--
       ``(i) seminars that last 1 day or less and are conducted 
     by, and on the campus of, an institute of higher education;
       ``(ii) seminars that last 1 day or less and are conducted 
     by national bar associations or State or local bar 
     associations for the benefit of the bar association 
     membership; or
       ``(iii) seminars of any length conducted by, and on the 
     campus of an institute of higher education or by national bar 
     associations or State or local bar associations, where a 
     judge is a presenter and at which judges constitute less than 
     25 percent of the participants;
       ``(3) `national bar association' means a national 
     organization that is open to general membership to all 
     members of the bar; and
       ``(4) `State or local bar association' means a State or 
     local organization that is open to general membership to all 
     members of the bar in the specified geographic region.
       ``(b) There is established within the United States 
     Treasury a fund to be known as the `Judicial Education Fund' 
     (in this section referred to as the `Fund').
       ``(c) Amounts in the Fund may be made available for the 
     payment of necessary expenses, including reasonable 
     expenditures for transportation, food, lodging, private 
     judicial seminar fees and materials, incurred by a judge or 
     justice in attending a private judicial seminar approved by 
     the Board of the Federal Judicial Center. Necessary expenses 
     shall not include expenditures for recreational activities or 
     entertainment other than that provided to all attendees as an 
     integral part of the private judicial seminar. Any payment 
     from the Fund shall be approved by the Board.
       ``(d) The Board may approve a private judicial seminar 
     after submission of information by the sponsor of that 
     private judicial seminar that includes--
       ``(1) the content of the private judicial seminar 
     (including a list of presenters, topics, and course 
     materials); and
       ``(2) the litigation activities of the sponsor and the 
     presenters at the private judicial seminar (including the 
     litigation activities of the employer of each presenter) on 
     the topic related to those addressed at the private judicial 
     seminar.
       ``(e) If the Board approves a private judicial seminar, the 
     Board shall make the information submitted under subsection 
     (d) relating to the private judicial seminar available to 
     judges and the public by posting the information on the 
     Internet.
       ``(f) The Judicial Conference shall promulgate guidelines 
     to ensure that the Board only approves private judicial 
     seminars that are conducted in a manner so as to maintain the 
     public's confidence in an unbiased and fair-minded judiciary.
       ``(g) There are authorized to be appropriated for deposit 
     in the Fund $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003, 2004, 
     and 2005, to remain available until expended.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of 
     sections for chapter 42 of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

``630. Judicial Education Fund.''.

     SEC. 7. PRIVATE JUDICIAL SEMINAR GIFTS PROHIBITED.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section, the term--
       (1) ``institution of higher education'' has the meaning 
     given under section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a));
       (2) ``private judicial seminar''--
       (A) means a seminar, symposia, panel discussion, course, or 
     a similar event that provides continuing legal education to 
     judges; and
       (B) does not include--
       (i) seminars that last 1 day or less and are conducted by, 
     and on the campus of, an institute of higher education;
       (ii) seminars that last 1 day or less and are conducted by 
     national bar associations or State or local bar associations 
     for the benefit of the bar association membership; or
       (iii) seminars of any length conducted by, and on the 
     campus of an institute of higher education or by national bar 
     associations or State or local bar associations, where a 
     judge is a presenter and at which judges constitute less than 
     25 percent of the participants.
       (3) ``national bar association'' means a national 
     organization that is open to general membership to all 
     members of the bar; and
       (4) ``State or local bar association'' means a State or 
     local organization that is open to general membership to all 
     members of the bar in the specified geographic region.
       (b) In General.--Not later than 240 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Judicial Conference of the United 
     States shall promulgate regulations to apply section 7353(a) 
     of title 5, United States Code, to prohibit the solicitation 
     or acceptance of anything of value in connection with a 
     private judicial seminar.
       (c) Exception.--The prohibition under the regulations 
     promulgated under subsection (b) shall not apply if--
       (1) the judge participates in a private judicial seminar as 
     a speaker, panel participant, or otherwise presents 
     information;
       (2) Federal judges are not the primary audience at the 
     private judicial seminar; and
       (3) the thing of value accepted is--
       (A) reimbursement from the private judicial seminar sponsor 
     of reasonable transportation, food, or lodging expenses on 
     any day on which the judge speaks, participates, or presents 
     information, as applicable;
       (B) attendance at the private judicial seminar on any day 
     on which the judge speaks, participates, or presents 
     information, as applicable; or
       (C) anything excluded from the definition of a gift under 
     regulations of the Judicial Conference of the United States 
     under sections 7351 and 7353 of title 5, United States Code, 
     as in effect on the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 8. RECUSAL LISTS.

       Section 455 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(g)(1) Each justice, judge, and magistrate of the United 
     States shall maintain a list of all financial interests that 
     would require disqualification under subsection (b)(4).
       ``(2) Each list maintained under paragraph (1) shall be 
     made available to the public at the office of the clerk for 
     the court at which a justice, judge, or magistrate is 
     assigned.''.

     SEC. 9. AVOIDING IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF 
                   IMPROPRIETY IN ALL ACTIVITIES.

       In accordance with the Code of Conduct for United States 
     Judges, a judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of 
     impropriety. The prohibition against behaving with 
     impropriety applies to both the professional and personal 
     conduct of a judge. Therefore, a judge should not hold 
     membership in any organization, except for religious or 
     fraternal organizations, that practices discrimination on the 
     basis of race, gender, religion, or national origin.
                                 ______