To authorize salary adjustments for Justices and judges of the United States for fiscal year 2003.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this critical legislation which provides the Federal judiciary with a much- needed cost-of-living adjustment. I also thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for his leadership on this matter, and the speed with which he has brought this legislation to the House floor.

Article I, Section III of the Constitution provides that the pay of Federal judges ``shall not be diminished during their time in office.'' Unfortunately, by failing to provide Federal judges with annual COLAs over the last decade, they have faced the economic equivalent of a $77,000 reduction in salary. In the last 30 years, while average pay has increased 12 percent for most workers, it has decreased 25 percent for Federal judges.

Currently, Federal district court judges earn $150,000 per year. This is far less than they could earn in private practice, and is even less than an associate right out of law school earns in New York City. It has gotten so bad that employees of the Administrative Office of Courts, who work for the Federal judges, now enjoy greater salaries than the judges themselves. This is the equivalent of congressional staff earning more than congressmen and women. It is no wonder that Federal judges are leaving in droves, with nearly six dozen judges leaving over the last several years, and notably with many districts overloaded with cases and many citizens not able to have their grievances addressed. That certainly does not bear well for the Constitution.

There can be no doubt of the value and importance of ensuring that our Federal judges are fairly compensated. The Federal judiciary is the crown jewel of our democracy. If there is any single idea in the Constitution that has separated our experiment in democracy from all other nations, it is the concept of a free and independent and just judiciary.

The Founding Fathers, in their great wisdom, created a system of checks and balances, granting independent judges not only lifetime tenure, but the right to an undiminished salary. It is no surprise that over the years, the Federal judiciary, more than any other branch, has served as the protector of our precious civil rights and liberties. I agree with Alexander Hamilton that the ``independent spirit of judges'' enables them to stand against the ``ill humors of passing political majorities.''

But we cannot have a qualified and independent judiciary if we do not pay them a just wage. Just last week Chief Justice Rehnquist declared that ``providing adequate compensation for judges is basic to attracting and retaining experienced, well-qualified and diverse men and women.'' Justice Breyer was even more blunt when he stated ``The gulf that separates judicial pay from compensation in the nonprofit sector, in academia, and in the private sector grows larger and larger, and threatens irreparable harm both to the institution and the public it serves.''

It is for these reasons that I was so shocked last November when the continuing resolution Congress approved gave a cost-of-living adjustment to nearly every Federal worker but the Federal judges. The bill before us responds to that oversight by granting the judiciary a COLA retroactive to the start of the last fiscal year. I consider this to be a modest downpayment in the development of a more rational and fair system of compensating our Federal judges. I urge an enthusiastic yes vote for this bill.

I rise in support of this critical legislation, which provides the federal judiciary with a much needed cost of living adjustment. I also want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for his leadership on this matter and the speed with which he has brought this legislation to the House floor.

Article I, Section III of the Constitution provides that the pay of federal judges ``shall not be diminished during their time in office.'' Unfortunately, by failing to provide federal judges with annual COLA's over the last decade, they have faced the economic equivalent of a $77,000 reduction in salary. In the last 30 years, while average pay has increased 12 percent for most workers, it has decreased 25 percent for federal judges.

Currently, federal district court judges earn $150,000 per year. This is far, far less than they could earn in private practice and is even less than an associate right out of law school earns in New York City.

It has gotten so bad that employees of the Administrative Office of the Courts--who work for the federal judges--now enjoy greater salaries than the judges themselves. This is the equivalent of congressional staff earning more than Congressmen. It is no wonder that federal judges are leaving in droves, with nearly six dozen judges leaving over the last several years.

There can be no doubt of the value and importance of insuring that our federal judges are fairly compensated. The federal judiciary is the crown jewel of our democracy. If there is any single idea in the Constitution that has separated our experiment in democracy from all other nations, it is the concept of an independent judiciary.

The founding fathers, in their great wisdom, created a system of checks and balances, granting independent judges not only lifetime tenure, but the right to an undiminished salary. It is no surprise that over the years, the federal judiciary, more than any other branch, has served as the protector of our previous civil rights and civil liberties. I agree with Alexander Hamilton that the ``independent spiral of judges'' enable them to stand against the ``ill humors of passing political majorities.''

But we cannot have a qualified and independent judiciary if we don't pay them at a just wage. Just last week Chief Justice Rehnquist declared that ``providing adequate compensation for judges is basic to attracting and retaining experience, well-qualified and divers men and women.'' Justice Breyer was even more blunt when he stated, ``the gulf that separates judicial pay from compensation in the non-profit sector, in academia, and in the private sector grows larger and larger . . . and threatens irreparable harm both to the institution and the public it serves.''

It is for these reasons that I was so shocked last November when the continuing resolution Congress approved gave a cost of living adjustment to nearly every federal worker but the federal judges. The bill before us responds to that oversight by granting the judiciary a COLA retroactive to the start of the last fiscal year. I consider this to be a modest down payment in developing a more rationale and fair system of compensating our federal judges. I urge a yes vote.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we all come from different congressional districts, but we are honored and cherish the right to represent Americans. I happen to come from a district with a sizable population of Hispanic Americans, African Americans and Asian Americans, a very diverse community.

In paying tribute to the Federal judiciary, might I make note of the fact that it is the Federal judiciary that most often has been able to create opportunities for groups who have felt disenfranchised and left out. It is the Federal judiciary that responded favorably in the Sixth Circuit on the positive aspects of affirmative action, recognizing that affirmative action is not a handout but a hand-up, and affirmatively approved the affirmative action program at the State university, the University of Michigan, allowing for that campus to have a diverse student body.

In particular, I happen to come from what is defined as a voter rights district, established under the Voter Rights Act of 1965. Since the creation of that district, held first by the Honorable Barbara Jordan, we have been in court over the years time after time. In the times that we have been in courts, it has been the Federal courts that have reaffirmed the value of having congressional districts that are able to give one-vote/one-person and provide the opportunities for, in this instance, minorities, African Americans and Hispanics, to vote for the person of their choosing, some now call it communities of interest, and to allow them to have a voice in the United States Congress. It has been the Federal courts that have heard these cases over and over and in many instances the Federal judiciary that has risen above their political persuasions and have offered opportunity and hope to my constituents.

Likewise, when there have been cases of discrimination, we have been most gratified that it has been the Federal courts that have taken these cases and responded, on sexual discrimination, age discrimination, race discrimination; and for many Americans, this would be the only way that they would be able to seek opportunity and to address their grievances.

I believe this vital role that the third branch of government plays should be so noted when we cavalierly miss them, if you will, in compensation. This is a time to appreciate the very important role that they play in bringing justice to America. As I conclude my remarks, might I say that that is why so many of us play a role in the process of nominations and why we so vigorously fight in the struggle, if you will, for designing a Federal court judiciary that is truly reflective of all of America.

With that, I would say that I hope that my colleagues in the comments that I have made will reflect upon the high importance of the judiciary that is a key part of the democracy of this Nation, and I would ask my colleagues to enthusiastically both respect, admire, and support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 16) to authorize salary adjustments for Justices and judges of the United States for fiscal year 2003.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 16, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation authorizes Federal judges to receive the same cost of living pay adjustment that all Federal employees, including Members of Congress, have received for calendar year 2003.

By way of background, Congress enacted the Executive Salary Cost-of- Living Adjustment Act in 1975, which was intended to give judges, Members of Congress and other high-ranking Executive Branch officials automatic COLAs as accorded other Federal employees unless rejected by Congress. In

1981, Congress enacted section 140 of Public Law 97-92, which requires specific congressional action authorizing judges the COLA.

Mr. Speaker, in the closing days of the 107th Congress, we failed to provide a COLA for Federal judges. This constitutes an inequity, since Members of Congress and all other Federal employees did receive a COLA in 2003.

The bill is straightforward. It simply provides for a cost-of-living adjustment for Federal judges consistent with the law. The President and the Chief Justice of the United States support granting judges a COLA now. The bill will assist in the administration of justice in our Federal courts and is otherwise noncontroversial. I urge its adoption.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I think at this point in the debate, it is proper to give a little history of how judicial salaries have been set. The last time Congress visited the whole issue of executive, legislative, and judicial salaries was in the Ethics Reform Act in 1989. Prior to 1989, there was a quadrennial commission that met every 4 years to decide what would be fair compensation for Federal judges, Members of Congress, and senior members of the executive branch, except the President whose salary was set through another process. This commission, which was comprised of people outside government, always recommended that there be significant pay raises for all of the officials covered in the old law. The pay raises were so significant that there was a huge public outcry, and Congress ended up rejecting those recommendations almost uniformly because of pressure from our constituency.

So in 1989 when Congress passed the Ethics Reform Act, it abolished the quadrennial commission, and it replaced it with a citizens' commission on public service and compensation. That was 14 years ago, and the new commission has never met. This same law stated that the salaries of the district judges would be the same as salaries of Members of Congress, and there has been a linkage of the district judges' salaries and that paid United States Senators and United States Representatives since. So as our salaries have gone up through cost-of- living increases, the judicial salaries have also gone up; and it was usually because there was a provision put in an appropriations bill that gave the judges the same COLA as Members of Congress and executive branch officials.

I know every year the Chief Justice talks about the inequity in pay of Federal judges and those who practice before them. I think he has a very valid point. But the points that the Chief Justice makes miss the point of the 1989 law completely; and I think that if we are talking about a judicial pay raise, it is incumbent upon those who are supporting it, which is not me at this time, to answer two questions: What should be the compensation of district judges, appeals judges, and justices of the Supreme Court of the United States? And why are the responsibilities of the Federal judiciary so much more than the responsibilities of United States Senators and United States Representatives that they deserve to be paid out of the taxpayers' treasury a considerably higher pay than the Senators and the Representatives, which I think have at least equal and probably much greater responsibilities on a day-to-day basis than members of the Federal judiciary have.

The burden of proof, to use a judicial term, on why the judicial salaries should be delinked from the legislative and executive branch salaries is on the Federal judiciary and those who advocate such a delinkage. In none of the statements that I have seen from the advocates of higher judicial salaries has there been one argument in favor of why these salaries should be delinked.

Because the Congress last fall failed to pass the same COLA as Members of Congress and the executive branch received, this bill is fair, this bill is necessary, and this bill should be supported. But until we get answers to the other two issues that I have raised, I do not think we should amend the basic law that was passed in the Ethics Reform Act of 1989.

I urge the House to pass this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 3349 and ask that my colleagues support it as well. This legislation gives Federal judges a 2.2 percent cost-of-living pay adjustment for 2004. Members of the Federal judiciary deserve this raise. The hardworking men and women of the Federal bench are a critical, if sometimes underappreciated, part of our constitutional democracy. We should do everything we can to ensure that we attract and retain the highest quality judges.

While judges are predominantly called to service by a sense of duty and honor, financial considerations can be a powerful deterrent to service. Judges already make far less than they could earn in private firms. While this pay disparity will always exist, Congress should at the least ensure that judicial pay does not effectively shrink. The failure to give judges a COLA would constitute just such a reduction in pay.

Unfortunately, Congress has failed several times in the past decade to give Federal judges a COLA pay adjustment.

Thus, over time, the pay of Federal judges has effectively shrunk. We should pass this legislation today to ensure this inequity is not increased further.

I want to make clear to my colleagues that this legislation in no way decouples judicial pay from the pay of Members of Congress and senior executive service. While I personally would not oppose such a decoupling, I know some of my colleagues, perhaps the gentleman who just spoke, would oppose it.

This legislation simply ensures that Federal judges can receive the same COLA increase that Members of Congress and senior executive service officials are already slated to receive for fiscal year 2004. Members of Congress and SES officials receive automatic COLA pay adjustments each year unless Congress specifically prohibits it. Federal judges, on the other hand, do not receive such COLAs unless Congress provides specific statutory authorization each year.

Congress typically provides this authorization in the annual commerce-justice-state appropriations legislation. Unfortunately, Congress has lately had some difficulty in passing the CJS appropriations bill by the start of the calendar year, let alone the fiscal year. The fiscal year 2003 CJS bill did not pass until 2003 was well under way, and now it looks like the fiscal year 2004 CJS bill will not be enacted until sometime in 2004. Such congressional action should not be allowed to imperil the COLA that Federal judges are rightfully do.

I applaud the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) for taking swift action to remedy the situation both earlier this year and now. In January of this year, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary ensured that virtually the first action of the 108th Congress was to pass H.R. 16, which authorized COLAs for 2003. He exhibits great forethought by bringing H.R. 3349 before the House before 2004 is upon us. I applaud him for taking swift action to make sure that judges will not be denied their COLAs through congressional inaction.

Of course, if future Congresses continue to have trouble moving the CJS appropriations bill in a timely fashion, the chairman may want to consider a different approach. A simple repeal of section 140 of Public Law 97-92 would dispense with the need to engage in this annual exercise. I commend this approach for the chairman's consideration and will not use this time to argue about whether or not it makes sense to pay judges more than third-year lawyers in excellent law firms. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3349) to authorize salary adjustments for Justices and judges of the United States for fiscal year 2004.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3349, the bill currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, by way of background, Congress enacted the Executive Salary Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act in 1975 which was intended to give judges, Members of Congress and high-ranking executive branch officials automatic COLAs accorded other Federal employees unless rejected by Congress. In 1981, Congress amended the statute by enacting section 140 of Public Law 97-92, which requires a specific congressional authorization to grant judges a COLA.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us is based on the template set forth in H.R. 16, now Public Law 108-6, which the House passed back in January and the President signed in February. H.R. 16 satisfied the section 140 requirement and thereby enabled judges to receive a COLA for this past fiscal year. H.R. 3349 accomplishes the same purpose for fiscal year 2004.

One final point, Mr. Speaker. The House will recall that Congress passed the Ethics Reform Act in 1989 to address the issue of Federal public service compensation. The mechanism for raising judicial salaries under the Act is premised on congressional action following a Presidential recommendation. A key feature of the 1989 law, however, was, and still is, that certain Federal judicial salaries are effectively linked to those of Senators and House Members as set forth in a statutory pay schedule for executive officials. In other words, the Federal judges cannot receive a pay raise unless Congress is willing to increase its own compensation along with that of various executive branch officials.

I do not believe that Congress should deviate from this construct by raising the salaries of life-tenured judges by nearly $25,000, as the Senate version of the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill would do. Along with many of our colleagues and other interested parties, I am not convinced that Federal judges work harder or have greater responsibility than Members of Congress or executive branch officials.

I believe in fairness, Mr. Speaker, and that is why I introduced H.R. 3349, to ensure that Federal judges receive a COLA when other civil servants, including Members of Congress, receive theirs. I otherwise maintain that neither Congress nor the third branch is entitled to a massive pay raise at this point, and I would urge the House appropriators to reject any attempt to

raise judicial salaries by deviating from the parameters set forth in the Ethics Reform Act.

To conclude, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3349 will assist in the administration of justice in our Federal courts and is otherwise noncontroversial and urge its adoption.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, of which I am a cosponsor. This bill provides the Federal judiciary with a much needed cost of living adjustment (COLA) for their salary for fiscal year 2004. I also would like to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for his leadership and bipartisanship on this issue.

The Constitution mandates that the pay of Federal judges ``shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.'' Unfortunately, by failing to provide judges with annual COLA's over the last decade, they have faced the equivalent of a $77,000 reduction in salary. Currently, Federal district court judges earn $150,000 per year. This is much less than they could earn in private practice; in fact, it is less than an attorney right out of law school can earn in private practice. Even the judges' employees, those who work at the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, can make more than their employers. In the last 30 years, while average pay has increased 12 percent for most workers, it has decreased 25 percent for Federal judges.

This issue can seem to be just a matter of salary, but it extends deeply into our concept of a democracy and judicial independence. The Constitution establishes a system of checks and balances, granting independent judges lifetime tenure and the right to an undiminished salary, in order to ensure the judiciary remains independent of financial, political, and social pressures. Unfortunately, many Federal judges are leaving the bench for private practice, and many experienced and qualified private practitioners are deterred from serving in the judiciary. The pay disparity has diminished the independence of our third branch and made it difficult to attract and retain qualified attorneys.

The timing for this legislation also is critical. Last year, Congress passed a continuing resolution that provided a cost of living adjustment to most Federal employees except judges. The omission required us to pass a law early this year to extend the COLA to judges. To ensure that we do not let this issue fall by the wayside again, we must pass this bill today.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this legislation.