[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 16 (Friday, February 10, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1073-S1074]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Kerry):
  S. 2276. A bill to provide for fairness for the Federal judiciary; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Fairness in 
Judicial Salaries Act.
  This legislation is needed to prevent a continuing decline in the pay 
of our Federal judges and prevent damage to the quality of our 
judiciary.
  Impartial, dedicated, and wise judges are critical to our justice 
system. Nevertheless, in the past three decades, our Federal judges 
have been neglected.
  Since 1969, the salaries of Federal judges have declined by nearly 24 
percent in inflation adjusted dollars. By comparison, in the same time 
period the salary of the average American worker has increased over 15 
percent.
  Since 1993, when Congress last passed a comprehensive revision of 
Federal salaries, real judicial pay has declined about 10 percent.
  The drop in judicial pay is even more stark when compared to judges' 
peers in the legal community.
  In 1969, the salary of a Federal district court judge was about 20 
percent higher than the salary of a top law school dean and about 30 
percent higher than that of a senior law professor at a top law school. 
In contrast, today, top law school deans make twice as much as district 
court judges, and senior law professors at those schools make nearly 50 
percent more.
  Today, partners at major law firms routinely make three, four or five 
times what Federal judges make. Furthermore, first year law school 
graduates at these law firms make more than experienced Federal judges.
  While judges are making less, they are also working more. In the same 
time period that judges pay has declined by nearly 24 percent, the 
caseload for district court judges has climbed by 58.4 percent and the 
caseload of Circuit Court judges has jumped 211.4 percent.
  While fairness alone would require a reasonable salary for judges, 
the growing pay disparity between judges and other members of the legal 
profession poses a real threat to the quality of our judiciary.
  In order to ensure that our judiciary can continue to attract--and--
keep top attorneys, it is imperative that judges' salaries be increased 
to at least make up for some of the loss in real pay that has taken 
place in the last 30 years.
  In 2003, the National Commission on the Public Service, also known as 
the Volcker Commission, concluded that ``the lag in judicial salaries 
has gone on too long, and the potential for the diminished quality in 
American jurisprudence is now too large.''
  In a July 15, 2002 statement to the National Commission on the Public 
Service, the late Chief Justice Rehnquist said inadequate compensation 
seriously compromises the judicial independence fostered by life 
tenure. The prospect that low salaries might force judges to return to 
the private sector rather than stay on the bench risks affecting 
judicial performance.
  Chief Justice Rehnquist's views were echoed by new Chief Justice 
Roberts in his State of the Judiciary Address from earlier this year. 
Chief Justice Roberts said the following:

       If judges' salaries are too low, judges effectively serve 
     for a term dictated by their financial position rather than 
     for life. Figures gathered by the Administrative Office show 
     that judges are leaving the bench in greater numbers now than 
     ever before. In the 1960s, only a handful of district and 
     appellate court judges retired or resigned; since 1990, 92 
     judges have left the bench. Of those, 21 left before reaching 
     retirement age. Fifty-nine of them stepped down to enter the 
     private practice of law. In the past five years alone, 37 
     judges have left the federal bench--nine of them in the last 
     year.
       There will always be a substantial difference in pay 
     between successful government and private sector lawyers. But 
     if that difference remains too large, as it is today, the 
     judiciary will over time cease to be made up of a diverse 
     group of the Nation's very best lawyers. Instead, it will 
     come to be staffed by a combination of the independently 
     wealthy and those following a career path before becoming a 
     judge different from the practicing bar at large. Such a 
     development would dramatically alter the nature of the 
     federal judiciary.

  Many of the judges that have left the bench in recent years cited 
financial considerations as a major factor in their decisions to leave 
the bench.
  In my home State of California, several Federal judges have gone on 
the record to say that they left the Federal bench because of financial 
pressures. Some of these judges have even taken jobs in the California 
State judiciary, since the State courts offer better salaries than the 
Federal bench.
  As a result of the linkage of judicial salaries with the salaries of 
Members of Congress, when Congress has voted to deny itself a cost-of-
living adjustment, as it has in 5 of the last 12 years, it has 
simultaneously denied all Federal judges cost-of-living adjustments, as 
well. Consequently, the real pay of judges has declined.
  I am not suggesting that judges be paid as much as partners at law 
firms; however, they should receive a fair salary. The legislation that 
I introduce today, the Federal Judicial Fairness Act, provides a 
straightforward solution.
  First, the act terminates the linkage of congressional pay increase 
to judicial pay increases, so that Congress's decision to deny itself 
pay raises will not also place that burden on Federal judges.
  Second, the act increases the salaries of all Federal judges by 16.5 
percent, in order to at least partially make up for the decline in real 
pay for judges over the last three decades. In 2003, both President 
Bush and Chief Justice Rehnquist agreed that a pay adjustment of at 
least 16.5 percent was needed.
  Finally, the act would provide Federal judges with annual cost-of-
living adjustments based on the employee cost Index, an index already 
used by the Federal Government to help Federal salaries keep up with 
inflation.
  The cost of this salary increase would be only $41.3 million, a 
relatively small sum to safeguard the quality and independence of our 
judiciary.

[[Page S1074]]

  Our Federal judges make many sacrifices in serving our Nation and a 
cut in pay is one of these sacrifices. However, the disparity between 
judicial salaries and salaries in the rest of the legal profession has 
grown so wide that the quality of our judicial system may be 
endangered. It is time to provide these critical public servants with a 
fair salary that will guarantee the future health of the judiciary.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2276

       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 ``Federal Judicial Fairness 
     Act of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. 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)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), 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 ECI 
     (relative to the date described in the next sentence), as 
     determined under section 704(a)(1) of the Ethics Reform Act 
     of 1989. The appropriate date under this sentence is the 
     first day of the fiscal year that begins in the preceding 
     calendar year.
       ``(2) In no event shall the percentage adjustment taking 
     effect under paragraph (1) in any calendar year (before 
     rounding), in any salary rate, exceed the percentage 
     adjustment taking effect in such calendar year under section 
     5303 of title 5 in the rates of pay under the General 
     Schedule.''.
       (c) Judicial Salary Increases.--Effective on the first day 
     of the first applicable pay period that begins on or after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the rate of basic pay 
     for the Chief Justice of the United States, an Associate 
     Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, a judge of 
     a United States circuit court, a judge of a district court of 
     the United States, a judge of the United States Court of 
     International Trade, a bankruptcy judge, and a full-time 
     magistrate judge shall be increased in the amount of 16.5 
     percent of their respective rates (as last in effect before 
     the increase), rounded to the nearest multiple of $100 (or, 
     if midway between multiples of $100, to the next higher 
     multiple of $100).

     SEC. 3. COORDINATION RULE.

       If a pay adjustment under section 2 is to be made for an 
     office or position as of the same date as any other pay 
     adjustment affecting such office or position, the adjustment 
     under section 2 shall be made first.

                          ____________________