[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 213-216]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




AUTHORIZING SALARY ADJUSTMENTS FOR JUSTICES AND JUDGES FOR FISCAL YEAR 
                                  2003

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
the bill (H.R. 16) to authorize salary adjustments for Justices and 
judges of the United States for fiscal year 2003.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                H.R. 16

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

     SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF SALARY ADJUSTMENTS FOR FEDERAL 
                   JUSTICES AND JUDGES.

       Pursuant to section 140 of Public Law 97-92, Justices and 
     judges of the United States are authorized during fiscal year 
     2003 to receive a salary adjustment in accordance with 
     section 461 of title 28, United States Code.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).


                             General Leave

  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 the bill, H.R. 16, 
currently under consideration.

[[Page 214]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation authorizes Federal judges to receive 
the same cost of living pay adjustment that all Federal employees, 
including Members of Congress, have received for calendar year 2003.
  By way of background, Congress enacted the Executive Salary Cost-of-
Living Adjustment Act in 1975, which was 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, 
which requires specific congressional action authorizing judges the 
COLA.
  Mr. Speaker, in the closing days of the 107th Congress, we failed to 
provide a COLA for Federal judges. This constitutes an inequity, since 
Members of Congress and all other Federal employees did receive a COLA 
in 2003.
  The bill is straightforward. It simply provides for a cost-of-living 
adjustment for Federal judges consistent with the law. The President 
and the Chief Justice of the United States support granting judges a 
COLA now. The bill will assist in the administration of justice in our 
Federal courts and is otherwise noncontroversial. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this critical legislation which 
provides the Federal judiciary with a much-needed cost-of-living 
adjustment. I also thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) for his leadership on this matter, and the speed with 
which he has brought this legislation to the House floor.
  Article I, Section III of the Constitution provides that the pay of 
Federal judges ``shall not be diminished during their time in office.'' 
Unfortunately, by failing to provide Federal judges with annual COLAs 
over the last decade, they have faced the economic equivalent of a 
$77,000 reduction in salary. In the last 30 years, while average pay 
has increased 12 percent for most workers, it has decreased 25 percent 
for Federal judges.
  Currently, Federal district court judges earn $150,000 per year. This 
is far less than they could earn in private practice, and is even less 
than an associate right out of law school earns in New York City. It 
has gotten so bad that employees of the Administrative Office of 
Courts, who work for the Federal judges, now enjoy greater salaries 
than the judges themselves. This is the equivalent of congressional 
staff earning more than congressmen and women. It is no wonder that 
Federal judges are leaving in droves, with nearly six dozen judges 
leaving over the last several years, and notably with many districts 
overloaded with cases and many citizens not able to have their 
grievances addressed. That certainly does not bear well for the 
Constitution.
  There can be no doubt of the value and importance of ensuring that 
our Federal judges are fairly compensated. The Federal judiciary is the 
crown jewel of our democracy. If there is any single idea in the 
Constitution that has separated our experiment in democracy from all 
other nations, it is the concept of a free and independent and just 
judiciary.
  The Founding Fathers, in their great wisdom, created a system of 
checks and balances, granting independent judges not only lifetime 
tenure, but the right to an undiminished salary. It is no surprise that 
over the years, the Federal judiciary, more than any other branch, has 
served as the protector of our precious civil rights and liberties. I 
agree with Alexander Hamilton that the ``independent spirit of judges'' 
enables them to stand against the ``ill humors of passing political 
majorities.''
  But we cannot have a qualified and independent judiciary if we do not 
pay them a just wage. Just last week Chief Justice Rehnquist declared 
that ``providing adequate compensation for judges is basic to 
attracting and retaining experienced, well-qualified and diverse men 
and women.'' Justice Breyer was even more blunt when he stated ``The 
gulf that separates judicial pay from compensation in the nonprofit 
sector, in academia, and in the private sector grows larger and larger, 
and threatens irreparable harm both to the institution and the public 
it serves.''
  It is for these reasons that I was so shocked last November when the 
continuing resolution Congress approved gave a cost-of-living 
adjustment to nearly every Federal worker but the Federal judges. The 
bill before us responds to that oversight by granting the judiciary a 
COLA retroactive to the start of the last fiscal year. I consider this 
to be a modest downpayment in the development of a more rational and 
fair system of compensating our Federal judges. I urge an enthusiastic 
yes vote for this bill.
  I rise in support of this critical legislation, which provides the 
federal judiciary with a much needed cost of living adjustment. I also 
want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for his leadership on this matter 
and the speed with which he has brought this legislation to the House 
floor.
  Article I, Section III of the Constitution provides that the pay of 
federal judges ``shall not be diminished during their time in office.'' 
Unfortunately, by failing to provide federal judges with annual COLA's 
over the last decade, they have faced the economic equivalent of a 
$77,000 reduction in salary. In the last 30 years, while average pay 
has increased 12 percent for most workers, it has decreased 25 percent 
for federal judges.
  Currently, federal district court judges earn $150,000 per year. This 
is far, far less than they could earn in private practice and is even 
less than an associate right out of law school earns in New York City.
  It has gotten so bad that employees of the Administrative Office of 
the Courts--who work for the federal judges--now enjoy greater salaries 
than the judges themselves. This is the equivalent of congressional 
staff earning more than Congressmen. It is no wonder that federal 
judges are leaving in droves, with nearly six dozen judges leaving over 
the last several years.
  There can be no doubt of the value and importance of insuring that 
our federal judges are fairly compensated. The federal judiciary is the 
crown jewel of our democracy. If there is any single idea in the 
Constitution that has separated our experiment in democracy from all 
other nations, it is the concept of an independent judiciary.
  The founding fathers, in their great wisdom, created a system of 
checks and balances, granting independent judges not only lifetime 
tenure, but the right to an undiminished salary. It is no surprise that 
over the years, the federal judiciary, more than any other branch, has 
served as the protector of our previous civil rights and civil 
liberties. I agree with Alexander Hamilton that the ``independent 
spiral of judges'' enable them to stand against the ``ill humors of 
passing political majorities.''
  But we cannot have a qualified and independent judiciary if we don't 
pay them at a just wage. Just last week Chief Justice Rehnquist 
declared that ``providing adequate compensation for judges is basic to 
attracting and retaining experience, well-qualified and divers men and 
women.'' Justice Breyer was even more blunt when he stated, ``the gulf 
that separates judicial pay from compensation in the non-profit sector, 
in academia, and in the private sector grows larger and larger . . . 
and threatens irreparable harm both to the institution and the public 
it serves.''
  It is for these reasons that I was so shocked last November when the 
continuing resolution Congress approved gave a cost of living 
adjustment to nearly every federal worker but the federal judges. The 
bill before us responds to that oversight by granting the judiciary a 
COLA retroactive to the start of the last fiscal year. I consider this 
to be a modest down payment in developing a more rationale and fair 
system of compensating our federal judges. I urge a yes vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for this 
legislation

[[Page 215]]

to give our Federal judges a cost-of-living adjustment. There is no 
question that they deserve and need this COLA and more. In 2001, the 
American Bar Association and the Federal Bar Association released a 
report detailing a fundamental problem that has escalated over the past 
decade, the erosion of fair and adequate compensation for the Federal 
judiciary. These two well-respected groups issued this report because 
they found that the current salaries of Federal judges have reached 
such levels of inadequacy that, and I quote, ``they threaten to impair 
the quality and independence of the third branch.''
  Yes, it is true that Federal judges earn a higher salary than many 
Americans, but it is also true that in many cases a first-year 
associate at law firm earns considerably more than does a judge. I 
think that all of us would agree that public service has its own 
rewards, but those rewards do not pay the bills.
  Members may wonder why it is that we must take up this legislation to 
authorize a COLA for Federal judges. The short answer is that we should 
not have to do so. But because of a provision enacted back in 1981, 
every year, year in and year out, Congress must authorize the COLAs of 
Federal judges even though those COLAs are the very same COLAs that are 
automatically granted to Members of Congress and senior executive 
branch employees. It is inefficient and it is unfair to make judges 
scale this additional hurdle. That is why I soon will introduce 
legislation that puts judges back on the same track as Congress and 
senior members of the executive branch, automatic COLAs, unless 
Congress specifically votes against it.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Let us give our 
judges the pay they deserve, and let us eliminate the provision that 
requires us to take this action each year.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we all come from different congressional districts, but 
we are honored and cherish the right to represent Americans. I happen 
to come from a district with a sizable population of Hispanic 
Americans, African Americans and Asian Americans, a very diverse 
community.
  In paying tribute to the Federal judiciary, might I make note of the 
fact that it is the Federal judiciary that most often has been able to 
create opportunities for groups who have felt disenfranchised and left 
out. It is the Federal judiciary that responded favorably in the Sixth 
Circuit on the positive aspects of affirmative action, recognizing that 
affirmative action is not a handout but a hand-up, and affirmatively 
approved the affirmative action program at the State university, the 
University of Michigan, allowing for that campus to have a diverse 
student body.
  In particular, I happen to come from what is defined as a voter 
rights district, established under the Voter Rights Act of 1965. Since 
the creation of that district, held first by the Honorable Barbara 
Jordan, we have been in court over the years time after time. In the 
times that we have been in courts, it has been the Federal courts that 
have reaffirmed the value of having congressional districts that are 
able to give one-vote/one-person and provide the opportunities for, in 
this instance, minorities, African Americans and Hispanics, to vote for 
the person of their choosing, some now call it communities of interest, 
and to allow them to have a voice in the United States Congress. It has 
been the Federal courts that have heard these cases over and over and 
in many instances the Federal judiciary that has risen above their 
political persuasions and have offered opportunity and hope to my 
constituents.
  Likewise, when there have been cases of discrimination, we have been 
most gratified that it has been the Federal courts that have taken 
these cases and responded, on sexual discrimination, age 
discrimination, race discrimination; and for many Americans, this would 
be the only way that they would be able to seek opportunity and to 
address their grievances.
  I believe this vital role that the third branch of government plays 
should be so noted when we cavalierly miss them, if you will, in 
compensation. This is a time to appreciate the very important role that 
they play in bringing justice to America. As I conclude my remarks, 
might I say that that is why so many of us play a role in the process 
of nominations and why we so vigorously fight in the struggle, if you 
will, for designing a Federal court judiciary that is truly reflective 
of all of America.
  With that, I would say that I hope that my colleagues in the comments 
that I have made will reflect upon the high importance of the judiciary 
that is a key part of the democracy of this Nation, and I would ask my 
colleagues to enthusiastically both respect, admire, and support this 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  I think at this point in the debate, it is proper to give a little 
history of how judicial salaries have been set. The last time Congress 
visited the whole issue of executive, legislative, and judicial 
salaries was in the Ethics Reform Act in 1989. Prior to 1989, there was 
a quadrennial commission that met every 4 years to decide what would be 
fair compensation for Federal judges, Members of Congress, and senior 
members of the executive branch, except the President whose salary was 
set through another process. This commission, which was comprised of 
people outside government, always recommended that there be significant 
pay raises for all of the officials covered in the old law. The pay 
raises were so significant that there was a huge public outcry, and 
Congress ended up rejecting those recommendations almost uniformly 
because of pressure from our constituency.
  So in 1989 when Congress passed the Ethics Reform Act, it abolished 
the quadrennial commission, and it replaced it with a citizens' 
commission on public service and compensation. That was 14 years ago, 
and the new commission has never met. This same law stated that the 
salaries of the district judges would be the same as salaries of 
Members of Congress, and there has been a linkage of the district 
judges' salaries and that paid United States Senators and United States 
Representatives since. So as our salaries have gone up through cost-of-
living increases, the judicial salaries have also gone up; and it was 
usually because there was a provision put in an appropriations bill 
that gave the judges the same COLA as Members of Congress and executive 
branch officials.
  I know every year the Chief Justice talks about the inequity in pay 
of Federal judges and those who practice before them. I think he has a 
very valid point. But the points that the Chief Justice makes miss the 
point of the 1989 law completely; and I think that if we are talking 
about a judicial pay raise, it is incumbent upon those who are 
supporting it, which is not me at this time, to answer two questions: 
What should be the compensation of district judges, appeals judges, and 
justices of the Supreme Court of the United States? And why are the 
responsibilities of the Federal judiciary so much more than the 
responsibilities of United States Senators and United States 
Representatives that they deserve to be paid out of the taxpayers' 
treasury a considerably higher pay than the Senators and the 
Representatives, which I think have at least equal and probably much 
greater responsibilities on a day-to-day basis than members of the 
Federal judiciary have.
  The burden of proof, to use a judicial term, on why the judicial 
salaries should be delinked from the legislative and executive branch 
salaries is on the Federal judiciary and those who advocate such a 
delinkage. In none of the statements that I have seen from the 
advocates of higher judicial salaries has there been one argument in 
favor of why these salaries should be delinked.
  Because the Congress last fall failed to pass the same COLA as 
Members of Congress and the executive branch received, this bill is 
fair, this bill is necessary, and this bill should be supported. But 
until we get answers to the

[[Page 216]]

other two issues that I have raised, I do not think we should amend the 
basic law that was passed in the Ethics Reform Act of 1989.
  I urge the House to pass this bill.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I support this measure to give Federal 
Judges a cost-of-living adjustment.
  Just today, the Washington Post reported the findings of a non-
partisan National Commission on the Public Service, led by former 
Federal Reserve chairman Paul A. Volker.
  One of the first steps the Commission recommends is to give federal 
judges an ``immediate and significant'' increase in pay.
  As it is, judges make far less than they could earn in private firms, 
and there is certainly no monetary incentive for top lawyers to accept 
nomination to the Federal judiciary.
  Though there is prestige in serving as a Federal judge, many of this 
country's best lawyers simply cannot justify leaving private practice 
during their prime earning years to serve on the bench.
  In the long run, this phenomenon will affect the quality of people we 
can attract to serve as federal judges. It doesn't mean that we ought 
to be matching partner bonuses dollar-for-dollar, but it does mean that 
we have to consider what the private sector offers if we want to ask 
our best and brightest to become public servants.
  Though a 3.1 percent COLA may not be all that ``significant,'' it is 
a small step toward creating enough incentive for Judges to remain on 
the Bench.
  I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support 
for H.R. 16, which authorizes salary adjustments for the federal 
judiciary during fiscal year 2003.
  Before the 107th Congress adjourned sine die, the House failed to 
authorize a necessary pay adjustment for the federal judiciary. The 
continuing resolution that the House passed on November 13, 2002, did 
not include the 3.1 percent cost-of-living adjustment for FY 2003 that 
federal judges were supposed to have received on January 1, 2003. The 
Ethics Reform Act of 1989 assures federal judges an annual adjustment 
based upon the Employment Cost Index [ECI], and Congress's failure to 
live up to its promise under that Act could have dire consequences for 
our legal system.
  It is imperative that Congress takes every action necessary to ensure 
the viability of the federal judiciary. In his 2001 Year-End Report on 
the Federal Judiciary, Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist 
stressed the importance of annual pay adjustments and requested that 
Congress increase salaries as a means of attracting and retaining 
qualified judges. Federal judicial salaries are relatively small 
compared to the salaries that are earned by experienced attorneys in 
private practice. Relatively low judicial pay, combined with a 
complicated and lengthy judicial confirmation process, acts as a 
disincentive for qualified, dedicated attorneys to join the federal 
judiciary. When judicial vacancies go unfilled, the American legal 
system suffers.
  It is inexcusable that the House failed to pass the FY 2003 Commerce, 
Justice and State appropriations bill, which contains the necessary 
authorization and appropriation for a federal judicial pay adjustment, 
during the 107th Congress. While Congress managed to give itself a pay 
raise for the current fiscal year, the federal judiciary was hung out 
to dry.
  Mr. Speaker, our system of justice is among the best in the world, 
and as the peoples' representatives, we should do all that we can to 
ensure the future viability of the judiciary. I am pleased that the 
House has finally considered this long-overdue legislation, and I urge 
my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this critical 
legislation, of which I am an original cosponsor. This bill provides 
the federal judiciary with a much needed cost of living adjustment 
(COLA) for their salary. I also would like to thank Chairman 
Sensenbrenner for his leadership and bipartisanship on this issue.
  The Constitution mandates that the pay of federal judges ``shall not 
be diminished during their Continuance in Office.'' Unfortunately, by 
failing to provide judges with annual COLA''s over the last decade, 
they have faced the equivalent of a $77,000 reduction in salary. 
Currently, federal district court judges earn $150,000 per year. This 
is much less than they could earn in private practice; in fact, it is 
less than an attorney right out of law school can earn in private 
practice. Even the judges' employees, those who work at the 
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts make more than their 
employers. In the last 30 years, while average pay has increased 12 
percent for most workers, it had decreased 25 percent for federal 
judges.
  This issue can seem to be just a matter of salary, but it extends 
deeply into our concept of a democracy and judicial independence. The 
Constitution establishes a system of checks and balances, granting 
independent judges lifetime tenure and the right to an undiminished 
salary, in order to ensure the judiciary remains independent of 
financial, political, and social pressures. Unfortunately, many federal 
judges are leaving the bench for private practice, and many experienced 
and qualified private practitioners are deterred from serving in the 
judiciary. The pay disparity has diminished the independence of our 
third branch and made it difficult to attract and retain qualified 
attorneys.
  This is why I was surprised when the continuing resolution Congress 
approved last session gave a cost of living adjustment to most federal 
employees except judges. The bill before us remedies this oversight by 
authorizing a COLA for the judiciary that is retroactive to the start 
of the 2003 fiscal year.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this legislation.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the 
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 16.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________