[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 20]
[House]
[Pages 27266-27267]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  AUTHORIZATION OF SALARY ADJUSTMENTS FOR FEDERAL JUSTICES AND JUDGES

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
the bill (H.R. 3349) to authorize salary adjustments for Justices and 
judges of the United States for fiscal year 2004.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3349

       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 
     2004 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 gentleman from California (Mr. 
Berman) 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 H.R. 3349, the bill 
currently under consideration.
  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, 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 high-ranking executive branch officials 
automatic COLAs accorded other Federal employees unless rejected by 
Congress. In 1981, Congress amended the statute by enacting section 140 
of Public Law 97-92, which requires a specific congressional 
authorization to grant judges a COLA.
  Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us is based on the template set 
forth in H.R. 16, now Public Law 108-6, which the House passed back in 
January and the President signed in February. H.R. 16 satisfied the 
section 140 requirement and thereby enabled judges to receive a COLA 
for this past fiscal year. H.R. 3349 accomplishes the same purpose for 
fiscal year 2004.
  One final point, Mr. Speaker. The House will recall that Congress 
passed the Ethics Reform Act in 1989 to address the issue of Federal 
public service compensation. The mechanism for raising judicial 
salaries under the Act is premised on congressional action following a 
Presidential recommendation. A key feature of the 1989 law, however, 
was, and still is, that certain Federal judicial salaries are 
effectively linked to those of Senators and House Members as set forth 
in a statutory pay schedule for executive officials. In other words, 
the Federal judges cannot receive a pay raise unless Congress is 
willing to increase its own compensation along with that of various 
executive branch officials.
  I do not believe that Congress should deviate from this construct by 
raising the salaries of life-tenured judges by nearly $25,000, as the 
Senate version of the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill would 
do. Along with many of our colleagues and other interested parties, I 
am not convinced that Federal judges work harder or have greater 
responsibility than Members of Congress or executive branch officials.
  I believe in fairness, Mr. Speaker, and that is why I introduced H.R. 
3349, to ensure that Federal judges receive a COLA when other civil 
servants, including Members of Congress, receive theirs. I otherwise 
maintain that neither Congress nor the third branch is entitled to a 
massive pay raise at this point, and I would urge the House 
appropriators to reject any attempt to raise judicial salaries by 
deviating from the parameters set forth in the Ethics Reform Act.
  To conclude, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3349 will assist in the administration 
of justice in our Federal courts and is otherwise noncontroversial and 
urge its adoption.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 3349 and ask that my colleagues 
support it as well. This legislation gives Federal judges a 2.2 percent 
cost-of-living pay adjustment for 2004. Members of the Federal 
judiciary deserve this raise. The hardworking men and women of the 
Federal bench are a critical, if sometimes underappreciated, part of 
our constitutional democracy. We should do everything we can to ensure 
that we attract and retain the highest quality judges.
  While judges are predominantly called to service by a sense of duty 
and honor, financial considerations can be a powerful deterrent to 
service. Judges already make far less than they could earn in private 
firms. While this pay disparity will always exist, Congress should at 
the least ensure that judicial pay does not effectively shrink. The 
failure to give judges a COLA would constitute just such a reduction in 
pay.
  Unfortunately, Congress has failed several times in the past decade 
to give Federal judges a COLA pay adjustment.

                              {time}  1030

  Thus, over time, the pay of Federal judges has effectively shrunk. We 
should pass this legislation today to ensure this inequity is not 
increased further.
  I want to make clear to my colleagues that this legislation in no way 
decouples judicial pay from the pay of Members of Congress and senior 
executive service. While I personally would not oppose such a 
decoupling, I know some of my colleagues, perhaps the gentleman who 
just spoke, would oppose it.
  This legislation simply ensures that Federal judges can receive the 
same COLA increase that Members of Congress and senior executive 
service officials are already slated to receive for

[[Page 27267]]

fiscal year 2004. Members of Congress and SES officials receive 
automatic COLA pay adjustments each year unless Congress specifically 
prohibits it. Federal judges, on the other hand, do not receive such 
COLAs unless Congress provides specific statutory authorization each 
year.
  Congress typically provides this authorization in the annual 
commerce-justice-state appropriations legislation. Unfortunately, 
Congress has lately had some difficulty in passing the CJS 
appropriations bill by the start of the calendar year, let alone the 
fiscal year. The fiscal year 2003 CJS bill did not pass until 2003 was 
well under way, and now it looks like the fiscal year 2004 CJS bill 
will not be enacted until sometime in 2004. Such congressional action 
should not be allowed to imperil the COLA that Federal judges are 
rightfully do.
  I applaud the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) for 
taking swift action to remedy the situation both earlier this year and 
now. In January of this year, the chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary ensured that virtually the first action of the 108th Congress 
was to pass H.R. 16, which authorized COLAs for 2003. He exhibits great 
forethought by bringing H.R. 3349 before the House before 2004 is upon 
us. I applaud him for taking swift action to make sure that judges will 
not be denied their COLAs through congressional inaction.
  Of course, if future Congresses continue to have trouble moving the 
CJS appropriations bill in a timely fashion, the chairman may want to 
consider a different approach. A simple repeal of section 140 of Public 
Law 97-92 would dispense with the need to engage in this annual 
exercise. I commend this approach for the chairman's consideration and 
will not use this time to argue about whether or not it makes sense to 
pay judges more than third-year lawyers in excellent law firms. In 
conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, of 
which I am a cosponsor. This bill provides the Federal judiciary with a 
much needed cost of living adjustment (COLA) for their salary for 
fiscal year 2004. 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, can make more than their employers. In the last 30 years, 
while average pay has increased 12 percent for most workers, it has 
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.
  The timing for this legislation also is critical. Last year, Congress 
passed a continuing resolution that provided a cost of living 
adjustment to most Federal employees except judges. The omission 
required us to pass a law early this year to extend the COLA to judges. 
To ensure that we do not let this issue fall by the wayside again, we 
must pass this bill today.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this legislation.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). 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. 3349.
  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.

                          ____________________