[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) * * *
* * * * * * *