[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 157 (Tuesday, October 27, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Page S10774]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          OBJECTION TO S. 1782

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to alert my colleagues that 
I intend to object to any unanimous consent agreement for the 
consideration of S. 1782, the Federal Judiciary Administrative 
Improvements Act of 2009. This legislation will increase the Federal 
outlays for the judicial branch and does not have an offset to the 
spending increases.
  In particular, I object to two provisions in S. 1782. First, this 
legislation will increase Federal expenditures by allowing senior 
executives in the Federal courts, the Federal Judicial Center, and the 
Sentencing Commission to carry over more annual leave days from 1 year 
to another. The bill would change the current allowance, 240 hours--30 
days--to 720 hours--90 days. This provision is a limited benefit to a 
number of senior executives and will cost Federal taxpayers millions of 
dollars.
  Second, the legislation includes a provision increasing the salaries 
of the four division directors at the Federal Judicial Center. This 
provision would increase the salary from Executive Schedule V--
$139,600--to Executive Schedule IV--$149,000. While this is only a 
slight increase to the spending outlays, it is the wrong message to 
send the American taxpayers when nearly 10 percent of the workforce is 
unemployed.
  Americans across the country are tightening their belts and finding 
ways to save money. Social Security beneficiaries are fighting to 
stretch their dollars because they will not see a cost-of-living 
increase for 2010 for the first time in nearly three decades. To expand 
benefits in the judicial branch for a chosen group of senior executives 
is the wrong thing to do when everyone is making sacrifices and 
millions of Americans are looking for work.
  If the Senate majority insists on offering S. 1782 for consideration 
notwithstanding my objection, at the very least, I will insist on 
offering S. 657, the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act as an amendment and 
request a rollcall vote. Unless this amendment is afforded a vote, I 
will continue to object to any unanimous consent agreement regarding S. 
1782. In this time of financial uncertainty, we should not be providing 
senior executives in the judiciary increased benefits absent 
legislation that will bring some sunshine to the courts by allowing 
media coverage of court proceedings.

                          ____________________