[Senate Report 110-277]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                       Calendar No. 614
110th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session                                                     110-277

======================================================================



 
            FEDERAL JUDICIAL SALARY RESTORATION ACT OF 2008

                                _______
                                

    April 1 (legislative day, March 13), 2008--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Leahy, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 1638]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the 
bill (S. 1638) to adjust the salaries of Federal Justices and 
judges, and for other purposes, having considered the same, 
reports favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that 
the bill, as amended, do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
  I. Background and Purpose of the Federal Judicial Salary Restoration 
     Act of 2008......................................................1
 II. History of the Bill and Committee Consideration..................4
III. Section-by-Section Summary of the Bill...........................9
 IV. Cost Estimate...................................................13
  V. Regulatory Impact Evaluation....................................17
 VI. Conclusion......................................................17
VII. Changes to Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported...........18

 I. Background and Purpose of the Federal Judicial Salary Restoration 
                              Act of 2008

    Article III of the United States Constitution provides that 
the country's judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court and 
the inferior courts Congress sees fit to establish. It 
stipulates that the judges of these Federal courts ``shall hold 
their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, 
receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be 
diminished during their Continuance in Office.'' Unfortunately, 
the compensation received by our Federal judiciary has not even 
kept pace with inflation. Just as his predecessor did before 
him, Chief Justice John Roberts has urged Congress to address 
judicial salaries in his Year End Reports. In his most recent 
report he wrote that ``salary restoration legislation is 
vital.''
    Since 1969, the salaries of the Federal judges have 
significantly declined when adjusted for inflation. According 
to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, 
judicial salaries have declined by nearly 25 percent. During 
the same time, private sector salaries have increased by more 
than 15 percent. By way of example, in 1969, a Federal district 
court judge earned 20 percent more than a law school dean and 
30 percent more than a senior law professor at a top law 
school. Today, however, top law school deans earn twice as much 
as district court judges, and senior law professors at those 
schools make nearly 50 percent more.
    While judicial salaries have failed to keep up with 
inflation, the workload of Federal judges has increased 
dramatically. Since 1960, the caseload for district court 
judges has climbed by almost 60 percent and the caseload of 
circuit court judges has jumped by more than 200 percent. 
Judges are working more than ever before and yet their pay has 
not even kept pace with inflation.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Need for Federal Judicial Pay Increase Fact Sheet, U.S. Courts, 
http://www.uscourts.gov/judicialcompensation/payfactsheet.html (last 
visited March 18, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Between 1993 and 2001, the Federal judiciary received only 
three out of eight proposed cost-of-living adjustments. As a 
result, judicial salaries suffered a 13.5 percent decline 
during this time.\2\ As of 2007, Federal judges had not 
received a cost-of-living adjustment in 6 of the past 13 years 
because Congress voted to deny its own Members a cost-of-living 
adjustment, which consequently limited judicial salaries under 
the Ethics Reform Act.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\American Bar Association & Federal Bar Association, Federal 
Judiciary Pay Erosion: A Report on the Need for Reform 5 (Feb. 2001).
    \3\American Bar Association's Governmental Affairs Office, 
Independence of the Judiciary: Judicial Salaries 1, http://
www.abanet.org/poladv/priorities/judicial_pay/ (last visited Mar. 18, 
2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 2003, the Fair and Independent Federal Judiciary Act was 
introduced by Senators Hatch and Leahy. That legislation, which 
would have increased the salaries of judges and Justices, was 
reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee and was later 
incorporated into legislation that was reported out of the 
Appropriations Committee. Unfortunately, the Republican 
leadership in the House failed to introduce a companion bill or 
even allow the judicial salary provision approved by two Senate 
Committees to be considered as part of an Omnibus 
Appropriations bill that year.
    Upon introducing the Federal Judicial Salary Restoration 
Act last year, Senator Leahy noted:

          To preserve a strong, independent judiciary, we must 
        make judicial salaries competitive. Our legislation 
        recognizes the important constitutional role judges 
        play in administering justice, interpreting our laws, 
        and providing the ultimate check and balance in our 
        government. Eight years ago, in 1999, Congress doubled 
        the President's salary to $400,000 a year. We are not 
        proposing to increase judges' salaries by 100 percent, 
        but by half that--by 50 percent. The increase is an 
        important step in ensuring the independence of the 
        judiciary. Judicial independence is critical for 
        preserving our system of government and protecting the 
        rights of all Americans. Surely we can do half as much 
        for the judicial branch of government as we did for the 
        Executive eight years ago.

    Senator Hatch expressed his support for this pay raise by 
commenting that:

          Judges have not received a real pay raise in nearly 
        20 years and have not received most of the basic cost-
        of-living adjustments they were due. The value of 
        judicial compensation has plummeted in the meantime. 
        Our commitment to fairness and to the judiciary's 
        diversity and independence requires that we begin 
        making up some of the difference.

    Paul Volcker, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve under 
the Carter and Reagan administrations, argued in The Wall 
Street Journal that congressional inaction on judicial pay 
could erode high professional standards and the independence of 
the judiciary. He discussed the appropriate compensation level 
for the judiciary, pointing out that:

          While judges cannot expect to equal the salaries of 
        partners in large law firms, the National Commission 
        [on the Public Service] determined that their 
        compensation should be comparable to that of law school 
        deans, senior professors and other nonprofit leaders. 
        Today, at $165,200, district judge salaries fall more 
        than 50% below what many law school deans or their top 
        professors make.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\Paul A. Volcker, Judgment Pay, Wall St. Journal, Feb. 10, 2007, 
available at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117107297874404462-
search.html (last visited Mar. 18, 2008). Currently, U.S. District 
judges and judges of the U.S. Court of International Trade earn an 
annual salary of $169,300; judges of the U.S. Courts of Appeals earn 
$179,500; Associate Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court earn $208,100; 
and the Chief Justice of the United States earns $217,400.

    Former Chief Justice Rehnquist's end-of-year reports urged 
congressional action to raise judicial salaries. In his 2000 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
report he stated:

          But in order to continue to provide the nation a 
        capable and effective judicial system we must be able 
        to attract and retain experienced men and women of 
        quality and diversity to perform a demanding position 
        in the public service. The fact is that those lawyers 
        who are qualified to serve as federal judges have 
        opportunities to earn far more in private law practice 
        or business than as judges.

    The Founders established the independence of the Federal 
judiciary by designing the terms of service to be for life. 
When salaries do not even keep pace with inflation and judges 
are tempted to leave the bench for financial reasons, the 
purpose and benefits of life tenure are threatened. The Federal 
Judicial Salary Restoration Act of 2008 would increase the 
salaries of Federal judges to ensure that the design of life 
tenure is not eroded but it is also balanced with provisions to 
ensure that our federal judges maintain the highest ethical 
standards to promote confidence in their impartiality.

          II. History of the Bill and Committee Consideration


                        INTRODUCTION OF THE BILL

    After months of working to build a bipartisan coalition, 
Senator Patrick Leahy introduced S. 1638, the Federal Judicial 
Salary Restoration Act of 2008, on June 15, 2007, joined by 
Senators Hatch, Reid, McConnell, Feinstein, and Graham. Since 
the bill's introduction, Senators Kennedy, Bingaman, Cantwell, 
Kerry, Bennett, Lieberman, Domenici, Lautenberg, Warner, Snowe, 
Inouye, Smith, Landrieu, Corker, and Pryor have joined as 
cosponsors. The bill was referred to the Committee on the 
Judiciary. It was the first judicial salary legislation 
introduced in the 110th Congress.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\Chairman John Conyers introduced companion legislation, H.R. 
3753, in the House of Representatives on October 4, 2007, joined by 
Representatives Bachus, Berman, Biggert, Boehner, Gohmert, Hoyer, 
Lungren, Pence, Schiff, Wasserman Schultz, and Watt. Since the bill's 
introduction, Representatives Cannon, Cohen, Cuellar, Davis of Alabama, 
Dreier, Eshoo, Feeney, Gerlach, Lewis of California, Moran of Kansas, 
Ruppersberger, Herseth, Sandlin, Boucher, Delahunt, Lofgren, Smith of 
Texas, and McDermott have joined as cosponsors. The House measure was 
amended and ordered to be reported from the House Judiciary Committee 
on December 12, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

    The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on February 
14, 2007, entitled ``Judicial Security and Independence.'' 
Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy of the Supreme Court appeared 
before the Committee. He testified:

          Members of the Federal judiciary consider the problem 
        so acute that it has become a threat to judicial 
        independence. . . . Your judiciary, the Nation's 
        judiciary, will be diminished in its stature and its 
        capacity if there is continued neglect of compensation 
        needs. . . . A judiciary committed to excellence 
        secures the Rule of Law. . . . Without a functioning, 
        highly qualified, efficient judiciary, no nation can 
        hope to guarantee the prosperity and secure the 
        liberties of its people.

    The Federal Judicial Salary Restoration Act was first 
listed on the Executive Business Meeting Agenda on November 15, 
2007. It was considered by the Judiciary Committee on December 
13, 2007 and January 31, 2008. During the December 13, 2007 
meeting, Senator Feinstein and Senator Kyl each offered an 
amendment to the bill and both amendments were accepted.
    Senator Feinstein offered a substitute amendment containing 
the complete amendment language adopted by the House Judiciary 
Committee. This amendment provides a lesser number than the 50 
percent pay raise that was introduced. The amendment provides 
that salaries be increased to the following amounts: U.S. 
District judges and judges of the U.S. Court of International 
Trade would be increased to $218,000; salaries of judges of the 
U.S. Courts of Appeals would be increased to $231,100; salaries 
of Associate Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court would be 
increased to $267,900; and the salary of the Chief Justice of 
the United States would be increased to $279,900. The amendment 
also repealed Section 140 of Public Law 97-92 (as amended), 
which requires specific Congressional authorization for 
judicial cost of living adjustments and further provided that 
cost-of-living adjustments to Federal judicial salaries each 
year be made in the same percentage as cost-of-living 
adjustments in salaries under the General Schedule pursuant to 
5 U.S.C. Sec. 5303.
    The Feinstein amendment alters the requirements for Federal 
judges and Justices to retire with their full salary. The 
amendment replaces the so-called ``Rule of 80'' with a ``Rule 
of 84.'' It provides that, in order to be eligible for 
retirement with their full salary under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 371(a), 
Federal judges or Justices must have a combined age and years 
of service of at least 84. The amendment allows current judges 
and Justices to elect to retire with their full salary under 
the new ``Rule of 84'' or the previous ``Rule of 80,'' and 
provides that if a judge elects to retire under the ``Rule of 
80'' the salary on retirement shall be equal to the salary on 
the day before the enactment of the Act. The amendment leaves 
the existing ``Rule of 80'' in place to govern a judge's 
eligibility for senior status.
    The amendment increases the workload requirements for 
senior judges, requiring them to carry a load of cases and 
administrative duties of at least a third of the work an 
average judge in active service would perform. Lastly, the 
amendment reduces the annuity of a retired judge or Justice who 
earns income in retirement that exceeds the salary the judge or 
Justice was receiving at the time of retirement. Beginning in 
calendar year 2009, the amendment reduces the annuity of a 
retired judge or Justice by $1 for every $2 of income earned in 
excess of the judicial salary, up to a maximum 67 percent 
reduction in the annuity. The reduction expires at the end of 
the year in which the retired Federal judge or Justice earns 
the additional income. The amendment does not apply to judges 
and Justices who are already retired under 28 U.S.C. 
Sec. 371(a) on the date of enactment of the Act. The Feinstein 
amendment was adopted by voice vote.
    Senator Kyl offered an amendment to increase fees that 
bankruptcy trustees receive from $15 to $75. The Kyl Amendment 
was adopted by voice vote.
    The Federal Judicial Salary Restoration Act was considered 
again at the Judiciary Committee's executive business meeting 
on January 31, 2008. The committee approved the bill after 
considerable debate on several additional amendments.
    An amendment was offered by Senator Feingold to address the 
gifts or additional compensation that Federal judges can 
receive. First, subject to the exceptions described below, this 
amendment caps private gifts of, or reimbursement for, travel 
expenses, meals, lodging, and outside income connected with a 
single trip or event at $2,000 per trip or event. This cap on 
expenses will allow judges to continue traveling to speak at 
legal conferences and law schools, or to judge moot court 
competitions so long as they are not reimbursed for more than 
$2,000. At the same time, it attempts to reduce the appearance 
problems created by judges receiving gifts of luxury 
accommodations or exorbitant ``lecture fees.'' During 
consideration of his amendment, Senator Feingold said of large 
direct payments to judges for single speeches or lectures, ``I 
think that it is excessive, and certainly it is unnecessary if 
a large pay raise now under consideration passes.'' Judges are 
public servants. Their expertise is valued and they should be 
free and encouraged to share it with law students, but Senator 
Feingold noted they should not create the appearance that they 
are profiting from their public positions and the knowledge 
they have gained from their service.
    Questions were raised during the debate on this amendment 
concerning how it affects judges receiving outside income for 
teaching at a local or distant law school. In the case of a 
judge traveling to a law school to deliver a single lecture or 
several lectures in one day or over several days, a single 
$2,000 limit applies to all travel expenses and any payment the 
judge receives for teaching. In the case of a judge who teaches 
a weekly or monthly seminar over a semester, a separate limit 
applies to each trip or class. Thus, this amendment has little 
effect on a judge teaching a weekly class at a local law 
school, but it does limit the payments and reimbursements that 
a judge could receive for a single lecture or group of 
lectures. The committee is aware that some judges have received 
fees of $5,000 or even $10,000 for teaching a single class. 
That magnitude of payment is prohibited under the amendment.
    The second part of the amendment prohibits judges from 
accepting reimbursement for travel expenses, meals, lodging, 
gifts, and outside income in connection with programs whose 
purpose is the education of Federal or State judges. This 
prohibition is also subject to the exceptions described below.
    For several years, news reports of judicial education trips 
have inspired a great deal of controversy. Often valued at 
thousands of dollars, these trips are frequently held at posh 
vacation resorts. An ABC ``20/20'' expos in 2001 included film 
of judges playing golf, swimming laps, and sunbathing at an 
Arizona resort where one such expense-paid educational seminar 
was held. Senator Feingold described this part of his amendment 
by noting:

          These kinds of education vacation trips, which have 
        been valued at over seven thousand dollars in some 
        cases, create, I think, an appearance that the judges 
        who attend are profiting from their position and that 
        wealthy interests may be using their deep pockets to 
        try to win influence over, or gain favor with, judges. 
        This is an appearance, I think, that is at odds with 
        the traditions of our judiciary.

    Press reports indicate that these programs are often funded 
by corporations or other entities with cases before the court. 
The Montana-based Foundation for Research on Economics and the 
Environment (``FREE''), for example, is one of the leading 
sponsors of judicial education programs, sometimes held at a 
dude ranch and historic railroad hotel in Montana or at a 
tourist ranch near Yellowstone National Park. According to news 
reports, contributors to FREE include ExxonMobil, Philip 
Morris, and R.J. Reynolds.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\Eric M. Weiss, Firms Donated to Groups That Gave Judges Free 
Trips, Washington Post, May 25, 2006 at A27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Nor are such trips solely sponsored by one side of the 
ideological spectrum. A recent story in the Washington Examiner 
revealed that a group called the Institute for Law and Economic 
Policy, founded by plaintiff class-action lawyers, invited 
Federal judges to its programs in Los Cabos, Mexico and the 
Doral Gold Resort and Spa.\7\ These trips continue despite 
Chief Justice John Roberts's acknowledgment that special 
interests should not be allowed to lobby Federal judges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\Are They Hiding Something?, Washington Examiner, Feb. 15, 2008, 
editorial.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Several leading newspapers have issued editorials 
condemning these judicial seminars as ``junkets'' and calling 
on Congress to ban them as part of legislation increasing the 
salaries of Federal judges.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\See Junkets for Judges: They Should End in Return for Higher 
Pay, Washington Post, Feb. 10, 2008, editorial at B6; Protection and 
Pay for Federal Judges, N.Y. Times, Dec. 28, 2007, editorial at A22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Both the $2,000 limit on reimbursements for travel and the 
prohibition on judicial education trips are subject to an 
identical exception. Federal, State, and local bar 
associations, subject-matter bar associations, judicial 
associations, the Judicial Division of the American Bar 
Association, and the National Judicial College are not covered 
by this amendment. Federal and State governments are also not 
covered, but both public and private educational institutions 
are covered. These exceptions are largely drawn from guidelines 
promulgated by the Judicial Conference relating to disclosure 
of judicial education trips.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\See Judicial Conference Policy on Judges' Attendance at 
Privately Funded Educational Programs, adopted September 19, 2006, 
effective January 1, 2007, available at http://www.uscourts.gov/
Press_Releases/judbrappc906c.pdf (last visited Feb. 14, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Judicial Conference's interpretations, as of the time 
that this amendment was adopted, of terms used in the amendment 
should inform interpretation of this amendment. For example, 
the Judicial Conference has stated:

          [T]he phrase subject-matter bar association refers to 
        an association of lawyers who practice in a specific 
        area of the law, such as administrative, admiralty, 
        antitrust, elder, immigration, or patent law. 
        Associations of lawyers whose members comprise or 
        frequently represent the same side in litigation are 
        not considered to be subject-matter bar associations 
        for purposes of this policy.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\See Administrative Office of the United States Courts, 
Privately Funded Seminars Disclosure System, Frequently Asked 
Questions, available at http://www.uscourts.gov/
SeminarDisclosureSystem/faqs.cfm#seven (last visited Feb. 14, 2008).

    As used in this amendment, the term ``Federal bar 
association'' is intended to cover the Federal Bar Association 
and bar associations of various Federal courts.
    Senator Feinstein offered a second degree amendment to the 
Feingold Amendment to exempt from the $2,000 reimbursement 
limit trips approved by the Department of State to promote the 
rule of law and develop legal systems where reimbursement is 
provided only for travel, meals and lodging expenses. The 
Feinstein amendment was accepted.
    The Feingold amendment, as modified by the Feinstein second 
degree amendment, was accepted by voice vote. At the request of 
Senators, a roll call vote was held and the amendment was 
approved. The vote record is as follows:

                          TALLY: 10 YES, 9 NO

    Yeas (10)--Leahy (D-VT), Kennedy (D-MA), Biden (D-DE), Kohl 
(D-WI), Feinstein (D-CA), Feingold (D-WI), Schumer (D-NY), 
Durbin (D-IL), Cardin (D-MD), Whitehouse (D-RI).
    Nays (9)--Specter (R-PA), Hatch (R-UT), Grassley (R-IA), 
Kyl (R-AZ), Sessions (R-AL), Graham (R-SC), Cornyn (R-TX), 
Brownback (R-KS), Coburn (R-OK).
    Senator Durbin offered an amendment to ensure that the $60 
per case raise for bankruptcy trustees--which was adopted as 
the Kyl amendment during the December 13, 2007 committee 
meeting--would not be funded by assessing a new or additional 
fee to individual debtors or their attorneys. The Durbin 
amendment was adopted by voice vote.
    Senator Sessions offered an amendment to include active and 
senior judges of the United States Court of Federal Claims in 
the semiannual disclosure reports prepared by the 
Administrative Office of the United States Courts under 28 
U.S.C. Sec. 476. This amendment defines active and senior 
judges of the Court of Federal Claims as ``judicial officers'' 
for the purpose of that statute so that members of the Court of 
Federal Claims are subject to the same disclosure reports as 
other Federal courts. This means that information regarding the 
court's caseload will be part of the Administrative Office of 
the Courts semiannual public report that sets out workload data 
for the courts. The Sessions Amendment was adopted by voice 
vote.
    Senator Specter and Senator Kyl introduced an amendment 
containing several ethical reforms for judges and Justices. 
First, the amendment prohibits Justices and judges from 
accepting honorary club memberships valued at more than $50 per 
year, which is the current limit under Senate ethics rules.\11\ 
Justices and judges have accepted club memberships valued at 
several thousand dollars from organizations such as the Del 
Paso Country Club, the Washington Golf & Country Club, the 
Coral Ridge Country Club, the Robert Trent Jones Golf Club, and 
others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\See United States Senate Select Committee on Ethics, Senate 
Ethics Manual 60 (2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Second, the amendment requires a Justice's or judge's 
annual financial disclosure report\12\ to include the value of 
payments and reimbursements received by the Justice or judge--
or by a spouse or dependent child--for transportation, lodging, 
meals, and other expenses, in addition to a description of all 
meetings and events attended during travel. Further, the 
disclosure forms must be posted on the website of the 
Administrative Office of the United States Courts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\See Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.), 
Sec. 102(a)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Third, the amendment provides that the Regulations of the 
Judicial Conference under Titles III and VI of the Ethics 
Reform Act of 1989 shall apply to the Chief Justice of the 
United States, Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the 
United States, and officers and employees of the Supreme Court 
of the United States. Currently, those regulations are only 
binding on the lower courts; the Supreme Court is left to 
decide for itself whether to comply. Also, not later than 90 
days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Judicial 
Conference shall conduct a thorough review of its regulations. 
The Specter-Kyl amendment was adopted by a voice vote.
    Other matters of concern that were raised but not included 
in the Specter-Kyl amendment, as passed included acceptance by 
Justices and judges of reimbursement for international travel 
and outside earned income. For example, in 2006, two Justices 
were each reimbursed for over a month of international travel 
to destinations such as Italy, Israel, Switzerland, Austria, 
and England. Senators Specter and Kyl agreed to strike language 
prohibiting gifts of foreign travel.
    During the meeting, two proposed amendments were rejected 
by the committee. Senator Durbin offered an amendment that 
would have increased judicial pay by 16.5 percent instead of 
the 29 percent raise that is provided by the Feinstein 
substitute amendment. The amendment was rejected on a roll call 
vote. The vote record is as follows:

                          TALLY: 4 YES, 15 NO

    Yeas (4)--Kohl (D-WI), Feingold (D-WI), Durbin (D-IL), 
Sessions (R-AL).
    Nays (15)--Leahy (D-VT), Kennedy (D-MA), Biden (D-DE), 
Feinstein (D-CA), Schumer (D-NY), Cardin (D-MD), Whitehouse (D-
RI), Specter (R-PA), Hatch (R-UT), Grassley (R-IA), Kyl (R-AZ), 
Graham (R-SC), Cornyn (R-TX), Brownback (R-KS), Coburn (R-OK).
    Senator Sessions offered a second degree amendment to the 
Feingold amendment to exempt public and private universities 
from the legal education program cap of $2,000. The amendment 
was rejected on a roll call vote. The vote record is as 
follows:

                          TALLY: 9 YES, 10 NO

    Yeas (9)--Specter (R-PA), Hatch (R-UT), Grassley (R-IA), 
Kyl (R-AZ), Sessions (R-AL), Graham (R-SC), Cornyn (R-TX), 
Brownback (R-KS), Coburn (R-OK).
    Nays (10)--Leahy (D-VT), Kennedy (D-MA), Biden (D-DE), Kohl 
(D-WI), Feinstein (D-CA), Feingold (D-WI), Schumer (D-NY), 
Durbin (D-IL), Cardin (D-MD), Whitehouse (D-RI).
    The Committee then voted to report the Federal Judicial 
Salary Restoration Act of 2008, as amended, favorably to the 
Senate. The Committee proceeded by roll call vote as follows:

                   TALLY: 11 YES, 7 NO, 1 NOT VOTING

    Yeas (11)--Leahy (D-VT), Kennedy (D-MA), Kohl (D-WI), 
Feinstein (D-CA), Schumer (D-NY), Cardin (D-MD), Specter (R-
PA), Hatch (R-UT), Graham (R-SC), Cornyn (R-TX), Coburn (R-OK).
    Nays (7)--Feingold (D-WI), Durbin (D-IL), Whitehouse (D-
RI), Grassley (R-IA), Kyl (R-AZ), Sessions (R-AL), Brownback 
(R-KS).

              III. Section-by-Section Summary of the Bill


Section 1--Short title

    Section 1 states that this Act may be cited as the 
``Federal Judiciary Salary Restoration Act of 2008.''

Section 2--Restoration of compensation

    Section 2(a) increases the salaries of Federal judicial 
officers as of the first applicable pay period on or after 
enactment. Salaries of U.S. district judges and judges of the 
U.S. Court of International Trade are increased to $218,000; 
salaries of judges of the U.S. Courts of Appeals are increased 
to $231,100; salaries of Associate Justices of the U.S. Supreme 
Court are increased to $267,900; and the salary of the Chief 
Justice of the United States is increased to $279,900.
    Section 2(b) provides that if any other adjustment is to be 
made in the pay of a Federal judge or Justice as of the same 
date as the salary increases provided under the Federal 
Judicial Salary Restoration Act, the increase under this Act 
shall be applied first.

Section 3--Repeal of prohibition on salary increases

    Section 3 repeals Section 140 of Public Law 97-92, as 
amended by Public Law 107-77. Until this repeal, Section 140 
requires specific congressional authorization for any salary 
increase for Federal judges or Justices.

Section 4--Retirement provisions

    Section 4(a) amends 28 U.S.C. Sec. 371 to establish new age 
and service requirements for Federal judges and Justices to 
retire on salary. It requires a judge or Justice to serve until 
the sum of his or her age and years of service is at least 84, 
to be eligible for retirement on salary. Under Section 4(a), a 
judge or Justice remains eligible to retire in senior status if 
the sum of his or her age and years of service is at least 80.
    Section 4(b) allows any Federal judge or Justice to elect 
to retire under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 371(a) on the on the basis of 
the new age and service requirements established in Section 
4(a), or on the basis of the age and service requirements that 
existed prior to the enactment of this Act. It provides that if 
a judge or Justice elects to retire under the prior age and 
service requirements, the annuity of that judge or Justice 
shall be equal to the salary the judge or Justice received on 
the day before enactment of this Act.
    Section 4(c) amends the workload requirements for senior 
judges under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 371(e)(1). For a judge to continue 
on senior status, Section 4(c) requires the judge to have 
carried in the preceding calendar year a load of cases and 
administrative duties equal to or greater than the amount of 
work an average judge in active service would perform in four 
months.

Section 5--Annual salary adjustments

    Section 5 amends 28 U.S.C. Sec. 461(a) to provide that 
Federal judicial salaries shall be adjusted annually by the 
same percentage as the annual percentage adjustment in rates of 
pay under the General Schedule pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5303. 
Section 5 further provides that the adjustment to Federal 
judicial salaries shall take place at the beginning of the 
first applicable pay period commencing on or after the first 
day of the month in which an adjustment in rates of pay under 
the General Schedule takes place under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5303.

Section 6--Income limitation on retirement nnuity

    Section 6(a) states that beginning in calendar year 2009, 
the annuity in a calendar year of a Federal judge or Justice 
who retires under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 371(a) shall be reduced if the 
retired judge or Justice earns income in such calendar year 
that exceeds the amount of the salary the judge or Justice was 
receiving at the time of retirement. For every $2 in earned 
income in excess of the salary the judge or Justice was 
receiving at the time of retirement, the annuity of the judge 
or Justice shall be reduced by $1, except that the reduction in 
the annuity in a calendar year as a result of such earned 
income may not exceed 67 percent of the amount of the annuity. 
Section 6(a) further states that the reduction in the annuity 
of a judge or Justice in a given year shall expire at the end 
of that year.
    Section 6(b) states that Section 6(a) shall not apply to 
any individual who has retired under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 371(a) 
before the date of enactment of this Act.

Section 7--Limitation on acceptance of limited memberships

    Section 7(a)(1) gives the term ``gift'' the same meaning as 
is applied under section 105(9) of the Ethics in Government Act 
of 1978, with the exception that subparagraphs (A) through (F) 
shall not apply. Likewise, section 7(a)(2) give the term 
``judicial officer'' the same meaning as is applied under 
section 109(10) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978.
    Section 7(b) dictates that a judicial officer may not 
accept a gift of an honorary membership with a value of more 
than $50 in any calendar year.

Section 8--Judicial travel reporting requirements

    Section 8(a) requires that in addition to the contents of 
reports required under section 102(a)(2)(B) of the Ethics of 
Government Act of 1978, judicial officers must disclose an 
itemization of the payments and reimbursements received for 
transportation, lodging, and meals for themselves or 
accompanying spouse or dependent child, and a description of 
all meetings and events attended during the event.
    Section 8(b) amends section 5 of the Ethics in Government 
Act of 1978 by adding that the Judicial Conference and the 
Director of the Administrative Office of the United States 
Courts shall make each report filed under this Act accessible 
on the website of the Administrative Office of the United 
States Courts.

Section 9--Application of ethics regulations of the Supreme Court

    Section 9 applies the Regulations of the Judicial 
Conference of the United States under Title VI of the Ethics 
Reform Act of 1989 concerning outside earned income, honoraria, 
and outside employment and the regulations of the Judicial 
Conference of the United States under Title III of the Ethics 
Reform Act concerning gifts to the Chief Justice of the United 
States, Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, and officers 
and employees of the Supreme Court of the United States. The 
Judicial Conference must conduct a review of regulations 
described in this section not less than 90 days after the 
enactment of this Act.

Section 10--Judicial gifts

    Section 10(a)(1) states that a Federal Justice or judge 
shall not accept in connection with a single trip or event, 
travel, food, lodging, reimbursement, outside earned income, or 
anything that would be considered a gift under the Regulations 
of the Judicial Conference of the United States under Title III 
of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 valued at more than $2,000 
from a source other than the Federal, State, or local 
government, or local bar association, subject-matter bar 
association, judicial association, the Judicial Division of the 
American Bar Association, or the National Judicial College.
    Subsection 10(a)(2) prohibits Federal judges and Justices 
from accepting, in connection with a single trip or event, 
travel, food, lodging, reimbursement, outside earned income or 
anything that would be considered a gift under the Regulations 
of the Judicial Conference of the United States under the 
Regulations of the Judicial Conference of the United States 
under Title III of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 if it is 
linked with attending--as a speaker or participant--a program, 
whose purpose is the education of the United States Federal or 
State judges from a source other than the Federal, State, or 
local government, or local bar association, subject-matter bar 
association, judicial association, the Judicial Division of the 
American Bar Association, or the National Judicial College.
    Section 10(b) provides that subsection 10(a)(1) is not 
applicable to trips applied by the State Department to promote 
the rule of law or developing legal systems in foreign 
countries, if the reimbursement only covers transportation, 
meals, and lodging.
    Section 10(c) stipulates that the total value of items 
listed in subsection 10(a)(1) that a Federal judge or Justice 
can accept, cannot amount to more than $20,000 a year. The 
monetary amounts listed in section 10(a) will be adjusted by 
the twelve-month percentage increase in the Consumer Price 
Index for all Urban Consumers based on data available from the 
preceding year.

Section 11--United States Court of Federal Claims Accountability

    Section 11 amends 28 U.S.C. Sec. 476 by adding that the 
term ``judicial officer'' includes active and senior judges of 
the United States Court of Federal Claims.

Section 12--Bankruptcy Trustees

    Section 12(a) amends 11 U.S.C. Sec. 330(b)(2) by replacing 
$15 with $75 anywhere it appears.
    Section 12(b) prohibits additional fees from being charged 
to individual debtors or their attorneys to provide funding for 
any of the $60 increase in the trustee payments provided for by 
the amendment made in section 12(a).
    Section 12(c) dictates that this section shall take effect 
180 days after the enactment of this Act. In addition, the 
amendments made by this section shall not apply to cases 
brought under title 11 of the United States Code before the 
effective date of this section.

Section 13--Severability

    Section 13 provides that if any provision of this Act or 
amendment made by this Act, or the application of any such 
provision is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this 
Act, any amendments made by this Act, and the application of 
any provision of this Act shall not be affected.

Section 14--Authorization of appropriations

    Section 14 authorizes that the necessary funds be 
appropriated to carry out this Act.

Section 15--Effective date

    Section 15 states that this Act, its amendments, and the 
repeal made by this Act take effect on the date of enactment.

                           IV. Cost Estimate

    The Committee sets forth, with respect to the bill, S. 
1638, the following estimate and comparison prepared by the 
Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974:

                                                    March 28, 2008.
Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1638, the Federal 
Judicial Salary Restoration Act of 2008.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Leigh Angres.
            Sincerely,
                                                   Peter R. Orszag.
    Enclosure.

S. 1638--Federal Judicial Salary Restoration Act of 2008

    Summary: S. 1638 would increase the salaries and change 
certain retirement benefits for some judges and justices of the 
United States. The bill also would allow those judges and 
justices to receive annual cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) 
without further Congressional approval and would increase the 
compensation paid to Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustees.
    CBO estimates that enacting S. 1638 would increase direct 
spending by $1.9 billion over the 2009-2018 period. The bill 
also would increase revenues by $321 million over the 2009-2018 
period. In addition, CBO estimates that implementing S. 1638 
would result in additional discretionary spending of $166 
million over the 2009-2013 period and $418 million over the 
next 10 years, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts.
    S. 1638 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 
and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal 
governments.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of S. 1638 is shown in the following table. 
The costs of this legislation fall within budget functions 600 
(income security) and 750 (administration of justice).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     2009    2010    2011    2012    2013    2014    2015    2016    2017    2018   2009-2013  2009-2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING

Salary increase and COLA for Article III and
 bankruptcy judges:
    Estimated budget authority....................      90     102     113     124     135     147     160     172     184     198       564      1,425
    Estimated outlays.............................      86     101     112     123     134     146     158     171     183     197       556      1,411
Judicial retirement benefits:
    Estimated budget authority....................       1       1       2       3       5       6       7       9      11      14        12         59
    Estimated outlays.............................       1       1       2       3       5       6       7       9      11      14        12         59
Additional compensation for bankruptcy trustees:
    Estimated budget authority....................      40      40      40      40      40      40      40      40      40      40       200        400
    Estimated outlays.............................      40      40      40      40      40      40      40      40      40      40       200        400
    Total changes:
        Estimated budget authority................     131     143     155     167     180     193     207     221     235     252       776      1,884
        Estimated outlays.........................     127     142     154     166     179     192     205     220     234     251       768      1,870

                                                                   CHANGES IN REVENUES

Judiciary filing fees:
    Estimated revenues............................      25      30      30      30      30      30      30      30      30      30       145        295
Retirement contributions:
    Estimated revenues............................       2       2       2       2       3       3       3       3       3       3        11         26
    Total changes in revenues.....................
                                                        27      32      32      32      33      33      33      33      33      33       156        321

                                                      CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Salary increases and COLA for magistrate and CFC
 judges:
    Estimated authorization level.................      27      30      33      37      40      43      47      50      54      58       167        419
    Estimated outlays.............................      26      30      33      37      40      43      47      50      54      58       166       418
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes.--COLA=Cost-of-living adjustment; CFC=Court of Federal Claims; *=less than $500,000.

    Basis of estimate: CBO estimates that enacting S. 1638 
would increase direct spending, revenues, and spending subject 
to appropriation, as discussed in the following sections. For 
this estimate, CBO assumes that the number of vacant judgeships 
and the number of senior judges would not significantly change 
over the 10-year period. CBO also assumes that the bill will be 
enacted by the beginning of fiscal year 2009.

Direct spending

    CBO estimates that enacting S. 1638 would increase direct 
spending by nearly $1.9 billion over the 2009-2018 period for 
salary increases, cost-of-living adjustments, and additional 
retirement benefits for judges appointed under Article III of 
the Constitution and bankruptcy judges, as well as additional 
compensation for Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustees.
    Salary Increase and COLA for Judges Appointed Under Article 
III of the Constitution and Bankruptcy Judges. Salaries and 
benefits of Article III and bankruptcy judges are provided 
annually without the need for discretionary appropriations. 
Increases in such compensation thus would increase direct 
spending. In 2007, total compensation paid to those judges 
totaled $313 million. (CBO estimates that $282 million of that 
amount was for salaries.)
    S. 1638 would increase the current salaries of Article III 
judges, including the Chief Justice and associate justices of 
the Supreme Court, judges of the circuit and district courts, 
and judges on the Court of International Trade, by 
approximately 29 percent. Under current law, bankruptcy judges' 
pay is set at 92 percent of district judges' pay; thus, 
bankruptcy judges also would receive a salary increase of 
nearly 29 percent under the bill. Based on information from the 
Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC), CBO 
estimates that increased spending on salaries and benefits 
would total about $80 million annually, beginning in 2009.
    In addition, the bill would allow those judges and justices 
to receive an annual COLA without further Congressional 
approval. The bill also would change the way such COLAs are 
calculated to match adjustments made to the General Schedule 
under the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act. Using CBO's 
forecast for the employment cost index, we estimate that annual 
COLAs would range from 2.5 percent to 3.0 percent over the next 
10 years.
    Together, CBO estimates that salary increases and annual 
COLAs for Article III and bankruptcy judges would increase 
direct spending by $556 million over the 2009-2013 period and 
by $1.4 billion over the 2009-2018 period.
    Judicial Retirement Benefits. The salary increase provided 
under S. 1638 would result in increased retirement benefits for 
both active and senior Article III judges, bankruptcy judges, 
and certain surviving spouses. S. 1638 also would change the 
retirement rules for Article III judges who are not yet 
eligible for retirement benefits (active judges). In total, CBO 
estimates that enacting the bill would increase direct spending 
for retirement benefits by $59 million over the 2009-2018 
period.
    The increase in pay under S. 1638 would automatically 
increase retirement benefits for Article III judges and 
bankruptcy judges because their retirement benefits are based 
on the most recent salary at retirement. In order to receive 
increased retirement benefits based on the higher pay, S. 1638 
would require active judges to continue working past age 65--to 
age 67--and would require an additional four years of service 
at all retirement ages.
    CBO expects that all judges who are currently eligible to 
retire or who will become eligible over the next 10 years would 
delay retirement to receive that increased benefit. (Retirement 
eligibility for those currently eligible to retire and for all 
bankruptcy judges would remain unchanged.) Thus, based on 
information from the AOUSC and the actuarial valuation for the 
plan, CBO estimates that raising the salaries of those judges 
and justices and changing the eligibility for active judges 
would increase direct spending by $20 million over the 2009-
2018 period.
    All judges and justices can elect to participate in a 
retirement plan that provides survivor benefits. Those benefits 
are based on the average salary or retirement benefits of the 
judges or justices prior to death. Under the bill, survivors of 
active Article III judges would be able to receive a death 
benefit based on the judges' higher salary if the judge dies 
prior to reaching the higher age and meeting the length-of-
service criteria. Based on information from the actuarial 
valuation for the plan, CBO expects that 60 percent of judges 
would participate in the plan that provides survivor benefits. 
We estimate that raising the salaries of those judges would 
increase direct spending for survivor benefits by $39 million 
over the 2009-2018 period.
    Additional Compensation for Bankruptcy Trustees. The bill 
also would increase the amount paid to private trustees to 
administer Chapter 7 bankruptcy cases. Under current law, each 
debtor filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy pays a $15 fee, which is 
disbursed to the private trustee; the receipt or expenditure of 
that fee is not recorded on the federal budget. Under the bill, 
the payment to the private trustees would increase to $75, but 
individual debtors would be prohibited from paying more than a 
$15 fee. CBO assumes that the judiciary would be required to 
pay the increase in the trustee's compensation.
    To generate the necessary funding, CBO assumes that the 
judiciary would collect additional miscellaneous court filing 
fees which may be spent without further appropriations. Our 
estimate of increases in such fees, which are treated as 
revenues, is described in the following section. CBO estimates 
that additional compensation for the private trustees would 
total $40 million a year through 2018, based on projections of 
the number of Chapter 7 bankruptcy filings. Thus, we estimate 
that increasing compensation for Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustees 
would increase direct spending by $400 million over the 2009-
2018 period.

Revenues

    CBO estimates that enacting S. 1638 would increase revenues 
by $321 million over the 2009-2018 period. That amount includes 
additional judiciary filing fees and increased retirement 
contributions.
    Judiciary Filing Fees. CBO assumes that, under the bill, 
the judiciary would be required to collect additional court 
filing fees to pay for the proposed increase in trustee's 
compensation. Such fees are treated as revenues and have 
totaled between $190 million and $275 million annually over the 
last five years. CBO estimates that revenues from additional 
filing fees would total $295 million over the 2009-2018 period. 
That amount is net of reductions in payroll and income taxes.
    Retirement Contributions. Under current law, all 
participants in the plan that pays benefits to survivors are 
required to contribute 2.2 percent of their pay prior to 
retirement and 3.5 percent of their earnings after retirement. 
Bankruptcy judges are required to contribute 1 percent of their 
pay to participate in the Judicial Officers' Retirement Plan. 
Such contributions are treated as revenues in the budget. Thus, 
CBO estimates that the increase in pay under S. 1638 would 
increase revenues by $26 million over the 2009-2018 period.

Spending subject to appropriation

    CBO estimates that implementing S. 1638 would increase 
federal spending by $166 million over the 2009-2013 period and 
$418 million over the next 10 years to provide a salary 
increase and annual COLAs for Court of Federal Claims (CFC) and 
magistrate judges, assuming appropriation of the necessary 
amounts. Under current law, the salary of CFC judges is equal 
to that of district judges, while the salary of magistrate 
judges is 92 percent of district judges' pay. Accordingly, both 
CFC and magistrate judges would receive a salary increase of 
about 29 percent and an annual COLA under the bill. Current 
salaries for the judges affected by this provision total about 
$80 million annually.
    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 1638 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA and would not affect the budgets of state, 
local, or tribal governments.
    Previous CBO estimate: On February 1, 2008, CBO transmitted 
a cost estimate for H.R. 3753, the Federal Judicial Salary 
Restoration Act of 2007, as ordered reported by the House 
Committee on the Judiciary on December 12, 2007. CBO's 
estimates of direct spending and revenues related to judicial 
pay and retirement are identical for both bills over the 2009-
2018 period. H.R. 3753 would not increase the compensation paid 
to Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustees.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Leigh Angres--Judges' 
and Bankruptcy Trustees' Compensation; Taylor Tarver--
Retirement Benefits; Impact on State, Local, and Tribal 
Governments: Melissa Merrell; Impact on the Private Sector: 
MarDestinee Perez.
    Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                    V. Regulatory Impact Evaluation

    In compliance with rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the 
Senate, the committee finds that no significant regulatory 
impact will result from the enactment of S. 1638.

                             VI. Conclusion

    The Federal Judicial Salary Restoration Act of 2008, S. 
1638, addresses an important national interest. As the Chief 
Justice noted in his recent Year End Report, ``The pending 
legislation strikes a reasonable compromise for the dedicated 
federal judges who, year after year, have discharged their 
important duties for steadily eroding real pay.'' The 
legislation raises judicial salaries by nearly 29 percent, and 
increases the age and service requirement from 80 to 84 for 
judges and Justices who choose to retire with their full 
salary. It provides Federal judges and Justices more 
compensation, but is balanced by imposing new the ethical 
restrictions that Congress recently imposed upon itself. The 
Committee on the Judiciary reports this bipartisan legislation 
favorably to the Senate for its timely consideration.

       VII. Changes to Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by 
S. 1638, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, and existing law in which no 
change is proposed is shown in roman):

PUBLIC LAW 97-92

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



JOINT HOUSE RESOLUTION 370--DECEMBER 15, 1981

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


    Sec. 140. [Notwithstanding any other provision of law or of 
this joint resolution, 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, 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.]

PUBLIC LAW 107-77

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



HOUSE RESOLUTION 2500--NOVEMBER 28, 2001

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


    Sec. 305. [Pursuant to section 140 of Public Law 97-92, 
Justices and judges of the United States are authorized during 
fiscal year 2002, to receive a salary adjustment in accordance 
with 28 U.S.C. 461: Provided, That $8,625,000 is appropriated 
for salary adjustments pursuant to this section and such funds 
shall be transferred to and merged with appropriations in title 
III of this Act. This title may be cited as the ``Judiciary 
Appropriations Act, 2002.'']

TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 17--RESIGNATION AND RETIREMENT OF JUSTICES AND JUDGES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



Sec. 371. Retirement on Salary; Retirement in Senior Status

    (a) Any Justice or judge of the United States appointed to 
hold office during good behavior may retire from the office 
after attaining the age and meeting the service requirements, 
whether continuous or otherwise, of subsection (c)(1) and 
shall, during the remainder of his lifetime, receive an annuity 
equal to the salary he was receiving at the time he retired.
    (b)(1) Any Justice or judge of the United States appointed 
to hold office during good behavior may retain the office but 
retire from regular active service after attaining the age and 
meeting the service requirements, whether continuous or 
otherwise, of subsection (c)(2) of this section and shall, 
during the remainder of his or her lifetime, continue to 
receive the salary of the office if he or she meets the 
requirements of subsection (e).
    (2) * * *
    (c) Age and Service Requirements.--
          (1) Retirement on salary.--The age and service 
        requirements for retirement under subsection (a) are as 
        follows:

        Attained Age:                                  Years of Service:
67................................................................    17
68................................................................    16
69................................................................    15
70................................................................    14
71................................................................    13
72................................................................    12
          (2) Retirement in senior status.--The age and service 
        requirements for retirement under subsection (b) are as 
        follows:

        Attained Age:                                  Years of Service:
65................................................................    15
66................................................................    14
67................................................................    13
68................................................................    12
69................................................................    11
70................................................................    10

    (d) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (e)(1) In order to continue receiving the salary of the 
office under subsection (b), a Justice must be certified in 
each calendar year by the Chief Justice, and a judge must be 
certified by the chief judge of the circuit in which the judge 
sits, as having met the requirements set forth in at least one 
of the following subparagraphs:
          (A) The Justice or judge must have carried in the 
        preceding calendar year a caseload involving courtroom 
        participation which is equal to or greater than the 
        amount of work involving courtroom participation which 
        an average judge in active service would perform in 4 
        months. In the instance of a Justice or judge who has 
        sat on both district courts and courts of appeals, the 
        caseload of appellate work and trial work shall be 
        determined separately and the results of those 
        determinations added together for purposes of this 
        paragraph.
          (B) The Justice or judge performed in the preceding 
        calendar year substantial judicial duties not involving 
        courtroom participation under subparagraph (A), 
        including settlement efforts, motion decisions, writing 
        opinions in cases that have not been orally argued, and 
        administrative duties for the court to which the 
        Justice or judge is assigned. Any certification under 
        this subparagraph shall include a statement describing 
        in detail the nature and amount of work and certifying 
        that the work done is equal to or greater than the work 
        described in this subparagraph which an average judge 
        in active service would perform in 4 months.
          (C) The Justice or judge has, in the preceding 
        calendar year, performed work described in 
        subparagraphs (A) and (B) in an amount which, when 
        calculated in accordance with such subparagraphs, in 
        the aggregate equals at least 4 months work.
          (D) * * *
          (E) * * *
    (2) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (3) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (4) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 21--GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO COURTS AND JUDGES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



Sec. 461. Adjustments in Certain Salaries.

    [(a)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), effective at the 
beginning of the first applicable pay period commencing on or 
after the first day of the month in which an adjustment takes 
effect under section 5303 of title 5 in the rates of pay under 
the General Schedule (except as provided in subsection (b)), 
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 in which such 
adjustment in the rates of pay under the General Schedule takes 
effect.]
    [(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.]
    (a) Effective at the beginning of the first applicable pay 
period commencing on or after the first day of the month in 
which an adjustment takes effect under section 5303 of title 5 
in the rates of pay under the General Schedule(except as 
provided in subsection (b)), 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) equal to the percentage of such 
salary rate which corresponds to the percentage of the 
adjustment taking effect under such section 5303 in the rates 
of pay under the General Schedule.
    (b) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


APPENDIX 4--ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT ACT OF 1978

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (b) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (c) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (d) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (e) Notwithstanding subsection (b)(2), the Judicial 
Conference and the Director of the Administrative Office of the 
United States Courts shall make each report filed by a judicial 
officer under this Act (other than a report filed under section 
107) available on the website of the Administrative Office of 
the United States Courts.

TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 23--CIVIL JUSTICE EXPENSE AND DELAY REDUCTION PLAN

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (b) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (c) In this section, the term ``judicial officer'' includes 
active and senior judges of the United States Court of Federal 
Claims.

TITLE 11, UNITED STATES CODE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 3--CASE ADMINISTRATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (b)(1) There shall be paid from the filing fee in a case 
under chapter 7 of this title $45 to the trustee serving in 
such case, after such trustee's services are rendered.
    (2) The Judicial Conference of the United States--
          (A) shall prescribe additional fees of the same kind 
        as prescribed under section 1914(b) of title 28; and
          (B) may prescribe notice of appearance fees and fees 
        charged against distributions in cases under this 
        title;
to pay $75 to trustees serving in cases after such trustees' 
services are rendered. Beginning 1 year after the date of the 
enactment of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994, such $75 shall 
be paid in addition to the amount paid under paragraph (1).
    (c) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (d) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                                  
