[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 18]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 24110-24111]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  AUTHORIZATION OF SALARY ADJUSTMENTS FOR FEDERAL JUSTICES AND JUDGES

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. SHEILA JACKSON-LEE

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, November 17, 2004

  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 10 years though, this body has failed to 
provide Federal judges with annual cost-of-living

[[Page 24111]]

adjustments (COLA), and as a result, these offices have faced the 
economic equivalent of a $77,000 reduction in salary. In the last 30 
years, while average pay has increased by 12 percent for most workers, 
it has decreased by 25 percent 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 Congressmen. It is no wonder that Federal 
judges are leaving in droves, with nearly 6 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 us--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.

                          ____________________