[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1456-1459]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. COLEMAN (for himself and Mr. Johnson):
  S. 2272. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
increase the deduction for host families of foreign exchange and other 
students from $50 per month to $200 per month; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce 
legislation with my colleague from South Dakota, Senator Johnson, that 
will help ease the financial burden for American families who open 
their homes to foreign exchange students from around the world, and 
offer an incentive to additional families to get involved in 
international exchanges.
  Every year, approximately 30,000 American families host exchange 
students from all over the world. This exchange experience provides the 
families, their communities, the students

[[Page 1457]]

and their schools with a unique educational opportunity to increase 
cultural awareness and understanding. And it often produces lifelong 
friendship as well.
  Exchange programs are vital in today's interconnected world to build 
bridges of understanding. Youth exchange is particularly critical as it 
allows young people the opportunity to gain exposure to American 
families, culture and values early in their lives. Participants take 
home an understanding and often an appreciation for America's people, 
society and values.
  At her confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee early last year, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice 
declared, ``I am a big proponent of student exchanges. It is the best 
policy we can have.'' She explained that, ``the presence of foreign 
students'' is ``one of the best things'' for American students; the 
experience ``changes the way we think about people, and the way they 
think about us'', and she called student exchange ``invaluable.''
  We could not agree with her more. The legislation we introduce today 
will encourage more American families to participate in exchanges by 
increasing the monthly tax deduction for host families from $50 to $200 
per month. The current $50 tax deduction has been in place since it was 
first introduced in the 1960s. It has never been increased to allow for 
inflation or to reflect the increasing costs associated with hosting a 
student. Our legislation will increase the monthly deduction with an 
annual adjustment for inflation.
  While the increase is certainly not enough cover the expenses 
involved in feeding and housing a teenager, it will offer needed cost 
relief to American families, and most importantly, it will send a 
strong message to these families that our Nation values their 
contribution to increasing international understanding.
  I hope that my Senate colleagues will join Senator Johnson and me in 
supporting this legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2272

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Youth Exchange Support Act 
     of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. INCREASE IN CHARITABLE DEDUCTION FOR AMOUNTS PAID TO 
                   MAINTAIN CERTAIN STUDENTS AS MEMBERS OF 
                   TAXPAYER'S HOUSEHOLD.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 170(g)(2) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to amounts paid 
     to maintain certain students as members of taxpayer's 
     household) is amended by striking ``$50'' and inserting 
     ``$200''.
       (b) Adjustment for Inflation.--Section 170(g) of such Code 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Adjustment for inflation.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of any taxable year 
     beginning in a calendar year after 2006, the $200 amount 
     contained in paragraph (2)(A) shall be increased by an amount 
     equal to--
       ``(i) $200, multiplied by
       ``(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under 
     section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable 
     year begins by substituting `calendar year 2005' for 
     `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.
       ``(B) Rounding.--If any increase determined under paragraph 
     (1) is not a multiple of $10, such increase shall be rounded 
     to the next highest multiple of $10.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this Act shall 
     apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2005.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI:
  S. 2274. A bill to establish a language arts facility for Homeland 
Security personnel and law enforcement officers; to the Committee on 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Foreign 
Language Training Act of 2006, a bill that I believe is necessary for 
the success of our Department of Homeland Security personnel and other 
Federal agents.
  As you may know, our Department of Defense employees receive foreign 
language education and training at the Defense Language Institute 
Foreign Language Center. This school has provided training for American 
forces involved in arms control treaty verifi-
cation, the war on drugs, and Operation Desert Storm.
  I believe the Department of Defense's success can provide guidance 
for Department of Homeland Security personnel and Federal law 
enforcement agents who need foreign language skills. The Foreign 
Language Training Act of 2006 provides for such guidance by creating a 
facility similar to the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language 
Center for these Federal employees.
  My bill requires the Secretary of Homeland Security and other Federal 
agency leaders to identify employees who need foreign language 
education and plan for the provision of such education. To fully 
utilize existing Federal assets, the Foreign Language Training Act 
requires this training to take place at the Federal Law Enforcement 
Training Center in Artesia, New Mexico. FLETC is already planning to 
increase its language training capabilities and construct new language 
arts facilities in Artesia to accommodate the increased number of 
border patrol trainees being sent there, so it makes sense for other 
DHS employees and Federal agents to utilize this facility as well.
  Mr. President, the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center 
has prepared our soldiers for World War II, the Cold War, the Korean 
War, and the Vietman conflict. It continues to provide such training 
today. I believe that similar training is necessary for the men and 
women securing our homeland, and the Foreign Language Training Act of 
2006 provides for such education.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2274

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Foreign Language Training 
     Act of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act--
       (1) the term ``executive agency'' has the same meaning as 
     in section 105 of title 5, United States Code, except that 
     the term does not include the Department of Defense;
       (2) the term ``law enforcement officer'' has the same 
     meaning as in section 8331 of title 5, United States Code; 
     and
       (3) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security.

     SEC. 3. LANGUAGE ARTS PROGRAM AND FACILITY.

       (a) Program Expansion.--The Secretary shall expand the 
     language arts program at the Federal Law Enforcement Training 
     Center in Artesia, New Mexico, to provide training for the 
     Department of Homeland Security personnel and law enforcement 
     officers identified under section 4.
       (b) Facility.--The Secretary is authorized to construct a 
     language arts facility at the Federal Law Enforcement 
     Training Center in Artesia, New Mexico.

     SEC. 4. TRAINING REQUIREMENT.

       (a) Homeland Security.--The Secretary shall--
       (1) identify any employee of the Department of Homeland 
     Security for whom foreign language education is necessary; 
     and
       (2) require foreign language education for any employee 
     identified under paragraph (1).
       (b) Law Enforcement.--The head of each executive agency 
     shall--
       (1) identify any law enforcement officer employed by such 
     executive agency for whom foreign language education is 
     necessary; and
       (2) require foreign language education for any law 
     enforcement officer identified under paragraph (1).
       (c) Training.--Foreign language education for any 
     individual identified under subsection (a)(1) or (b)(1) shall 
     be provided at the language arts facility authorized under 
     section 3(b).

     SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Kerry):
  S. 2276. A bill to provide for fairness for the Federal judiciary; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Fairness in 
Judicial Salaries Act.
  This legislation is needed to prevent a continuing decline in the pay 
of our

[[Page 1458]]

Federal judges and prevent damage to the quality of our judiciary.
  Impartial, dedicated, and wise judges are critical to our justice 
system. Nevertheless, in the past three decades, our Federal judges 
have been neglected.
  Since 1969, the salaries of Federal judges have declined by nearly 24 
percent in inflation adjusted dollars. By comparison, in the same time 
period the salary of the average American worker has increased over 15 
percent.
  Since 1993, when Congress last passed a comprehensive revision of 
Federal salaries, real judicial pay has declined about 10 percent.
  The drop in judicial pay is even more stark when compared to judges' 
peers in the legal community.
  In 1969, the salary of a Federal district court judge was about 20 
percent higher than the salary of a top law school dean and about 30 
percent higher than that of a senior law professor at a top law school. 
In contrast, today, top law school deans make twice as much as district 
court judges, and senior law professors at those schools make nearly 50 
percent more.
  Today, partners at major law firms routinely make three, four or five 
times what Federal judges make. Furthermore, first year law school 
graduates at these law firms make more than experienced Federal judges.
  While judges are making less, they are also working more. In the same 
time period that judges pay has declined by nearly 24 percent, the 
caseload for district court judges has climbed by 58.4 percent and the 
caseload of Circuit Court judges has jumped 211.4 percent.
  While fairness alone would require a reasonable salary for judges, 
the growing pay disparity between judges and other members of the legal 
profession poses a real threat to the quality of our judiciary.
  In order to ensure that our judiciary can continue to attract--and--
keep top attorneys, it is imperative that judges' salaries be increased 
to at least make up for some of the loss in real pay that has taken 
place in the last 30 years.
  In 2003, the National Commission on the Public Service, also known as 
the Volcker Commission, concluded that ``the lag in judicial salaries 
has gone on too long, and the potential for the diminished quality in 
American jurisprudence is now too large.''
  In a July 15, 2002 statement to the National Commission on the Public 
Service, the late Chief Justice Rehnquist said inadequate compensation 
seriously compromises the judicial independence fostered by life 
tenure. The prospect that low salaries might force judges to return to 
the private sector rather than stay on the bench risks affecting 
judicial performance.
  Chief Justice Rehnquist's views were echoed by new Chief Justice 
Roberts in his State of the Judiciary Address from earlier this year. 
Chief Justice Roberts said the following:

       If judges' salaries are too low, judges effectively serve 
     for a term dictated by their financial position rather than 
     for life. Figures gathered by the Administrative Office show 
     that judges are leaving the bench in greater numbers now than 
     ever before. In the 1960s, only a handful of district and 
     appellate court judges retired or resigned; since 1990, 92 
     judges have left the bench. Of those, 21 left before reaching 
     retirement age. Fifty-nine of them stepped down to enter the 
     private practice of law. In the past five years alone, 37 
     judges have left the federal bench--nine of them in the last 
     year.
       There will always be a substantial difference in pay 
     between successful government and private sector lawyers. But 
     if that difference remains too large, as it is today, the 
     judiciary will over time cease to be made up of a diverse 
     group of the Nation's very best lawyers. Instead, it will 
     come to be staffed by a combination of the independently 
     wealthy and those following a career path before becoming a 
     judge different from the practicing bar at large. Such a 
     development would dramatically alter the nature of the 
     federal judiciary.

  Many of the judges that have left the bench in recent years cited 
financial considerations as a major factor in their decisions to leave 
the bench.
  In my home State of California, several Federal judges have gone on 
the record to say that they left the Federal bench because of financial 
pressures. Some of these judges have even taken jobs in the California 
State judiciary, since the State courts offer better salaries than the 
Federal bench.
  As a result of the linkage of judicial salaries with the salaries of 
Members of Congress, when Congress has voted to deny itself a cost-of-
living adjustment, as it has in 5 of the last 12 years, it has 
simultaneously denied all Federal judges cost-of-living adjustments, as 
well. Consequently, the real pay of judges has declined.
  I am not suggesting that judges be paid as much as partners at law 
firms; however, they should receive a fair salary. The legislation that 
I introduce today, the Federal Judicial Fairness Act, provides a 
straightforward solution.
  First, the act terminates the linkage of congressional pay increase 
to judicial pay increases, so that Congress's decision to deny itself 
pay raises will not also place that burden on Federal judges.
  Second, the act increases the salaries of all Federal judges by 16.5 
percent, in order to at least partially make up for the decline in real 
pay for judges over the last three decades. In 2003, both President 
Bush and Chief Justice Rehnquist agreed that a pay adjustment of at 
least 16.5 percent was needed.
  Finally, the act would provide Federal judges with annual cost-of-
living adjustments based on the employee cost Index, an index already 
used by the Federal Government to help Federal salaries keep up with 
inflation.
  The cost of this salary increase would be only $41.3 million, a 
relatively small sum to safeguard the quality and independence of our 
judiciary.
  Our Federal judges make many sacrifices in serving our Nation and a 
cut in pay is one of these sacrifices. However, the disparity between 
judicial salaries and salaries in the rest of the legal profession has 
grown so wide that the quality of our judicial system may be 
endangered. It is time to provide these critical public servants with a 
fair salary that will guarantee the future health of the judiciary.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2276

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Judicial Fairness 
     Act of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. JUDICIAL COST-OF-LIVING INCREASES.

       (a) Repeal of Statutory Requirement Relating to Judicial 
     Salaries.--Section 140 of the resolution entitled ``A Joint 
     Resolution making further continuing appropriations for the 
     fiscal year 1982, and for other purposes.'', approved 
     December 15, 1981 (Public Law 97-92; 95 Stat. 1200; 28 U.S.C. 
     461 note), is repealed.
       (b) Automatic Annual Increases.--Section 461(a) of title 
     28, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), effective on the first 
     day of the first applicable pay period beginning on or after 
     January 1 of each calendar year, each salary rate which is 
     subject to adjustment under this section shall be adjusted by 
     an amount, rounded to the nearest multiple of $100 (or if 
     midway between multiples of $100, to the next higher multiple 
     of $100) equal to the percentage of such salary rate which 
     corresponds to the most recent percentage change in the ECI 
     (relative to the date described in the next sentence), as 
     determined under section 704(a)(1) of the Ethics Reform Act 
     of 1989. The appropriate date under this sentence is the 
     first day of the fiscal year that begins in the preceding 
     calendar year.
       ``(2) In no event shall the percentage adjustment taking 
     effect under paragraph (1) in any calendar year (before 
     rounding), in any salary rate, exceed the percentage 
     adjustment taking effect in such calendar year under section 
     5303 of title 5 in the rates of pay under the General 
     Schedule.''.
       (c) Judicial Salary Increases.--Effective on the first day 
     of the first applicable pay period that begins on or after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the rate of basic pay 
     for the Chief Justice of the United States, an Associate 
     Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, a judge of 
     a United States circuit court, a judge of a district court of 
     the United States, a judge of the United States Court of 
     International Trade, a bankruptcy judge, and a full-time 
     magistrate judge shall be increased in the amount of 16.5 
     percent of their respective rates (as last in effect before 
     the increase), rounded to the nearest multiple of $100 (or, 
     if midway between multiples of $100, to the next higher 
     multiple of $100).

[[Page 1459]]



     SEC. 3. COORDINATION RULE.

       If a pay adjustment under section 2 is to be made for an 
     office or position as of the same date as any other pay 
     adjustment affecting such office or position, the adjustment 
     under section 2 shall be made first.

                          ____________________