[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 23847-23848]
[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. 5363) to authorize salary adjustments for Justices and 
judges of the United States for fiscal year 2005.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 5363

       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 
     2005 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 Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers) 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. 5363, 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, I rise in support of H.R. 5363 to provide a cost-of-
living adjustment for Federal judges in fiscal year 2005.
  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 specific congressional action to 
grant judges a COLA.
  Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us is based on the template set 
forth in H.R. 3349, now Public Law 108-167. That law satisfied the 
section 140 requirement and thereby enabled judges to receive a COLA 
this past fiscal year. H.R. 5363 accomplishes the same purpose for 
fiscal year 2005.
  H.R. 5363 will ensure that Federal judges receive a COLA when other 
civil servants, including Members of Congress, receive theirs. The 
legislation 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.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This is a great day in the Federal system where we on the Committee 
on the Judiciary have decided to authorize a COLA for the members of 
the Federal judicial system in America. Now, there are only a couple of 
problems here, and I, of course, enthusiastically support H.R. 5363.
  The first is that those who work in the administrative office of the 
courts, those who work for the Federal judges, now enjoy greater 
salaries than the judges themselves.
  The second thing is that, under the system that we are implementing, 
Article III, section 1 of the Constitution, the fact of the matter is 
that the failure to provide past cost-of-living adjustments to our 
Federal judiciary has, in the last decade, resulted in an economic 
reduction in salary in the equivalent amount of $77,000, and so we are 
now faced with a crisis of dozens, six dozen, judges having left the 
judiciary in the past several years.
  I think it is obvious to all that it is hard to continue to maintain 
a qualified and independent judiciary if we are not paying them a just 
wage.
  Having said this, we have brought this measure forward, not a moment 
too soon, to provide for them a cost-of-living adjustment for the 
present term.
  So I enthusiastically join the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman 
Sensenbrenner) in supporting this measure.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 
5363, a bill authorizing cost-of-living salary adjustments for justices 
and judges of the federal courts for fiscal year 2005 that has been 
introduced by Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner and co-sponsored by Ranking 
Member John Conyers of the Judiciary Committee. The bill would provide 
for a 2.5 percent adjustment of federal judiciary salaries. I thank the 
Chairman for his leadership in bringing this very important matter to 
the floor. In 1981, Congress passed a Joint Resolution Making Further 
Continuing Appropriations for FY 1982, and Section 140 of that 
legislation read as follows:
  Notwithstanding any other provision of law or of this joint 
resolution [Pub. L. 97-92], none of the funds appropriated by this 
joint resolution or by any other Act shall be obligated or expended to 
increase, after the date of enactment of this joint resolution [Dec. 
15, 1981], any salary of any Federal judge or Justice of the Supreme 
Court, except as may be specifically authorized by Act of Congress 
hereafter enacted: Provided, That nothing in this limitation shall be 
construed to reduce any salary which may be in effect at the time of 
enactment of this joint resolution nor shall this limitation be 
construed in any manner to reduce the salary of any Federal judge or of 
any Justice of the Supreme Court. This section shall apply to fiscal 
year 1981 and each fiscal year thereafter. (Emphasis added).
  This provision placed a severe limitation on the cost-of-living 
adjustments--and therefore the financial well-being of judges by 
requiring specific implementing legislation before a salary increase 
could be made under the current Section 461 of Title 28 in the United 
States Code.
  Article III, Section 1 of the United States Constitution provides 
that ``The Judges . . . shall . . . receive for their Services, a 
Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in 
Office.'' Over the past ten years though, this body has failed to 
provide federal judges with annual cost-of-living adjustments (COLA), 
and as a result, these officers have faced the economic equivalent of a 
$77,000 reduction in salary. In the last 30 years, while average pay 
has increased by 12% for most workers, it has decreased by 25% for 
federal judges. Federal judges make a lifetime commitment to serve the 
public. This legislation will help them to plan their financial futures 
with assurance that their pay is commensurate with the cost-of-living 
increases for this year.
  Under the current pay schedule, 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. Our federal judiciary will not attract 
the kind of high caliber legal minds that are needed if the 
compensation is not maintained in a reasonable fashion.
  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

[[Page 23848]]

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 ensuring that 
our federal judges are fairly compensated. The federal judiciary is the 
crux of our democracy. Without the wisdom of some of the great judicial 
scholars of the past, many of--women, African-Americans and all 
minorities, immigrants, disabled, and others, would not enjoy the 
fundamental civil liberties that we do today. We are a long way from a 
completely fair and equal society, but without the best and brightest 
legal minds, we will never make it to that goal.
  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 precious civil rights and civil 
liberties. I agree with Alexander Hamilton that the ``independent 
spirit of judges'' enables them to stand against the ``ill humors of 
passing political majorities.''
  We cannot have a qualified and independent judiciary if we don't pay 
them a just wage. Chief Justice Rehnquist has 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 blunter 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.''
  The bill before us responds to that problem 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 my colleagues to join this Committee in supporting this 
important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues vote 
``yes'' on H.R. 5363.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. 5363.
  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.

                          ____________________