Fair and Independent Federal Judiciary Act of 2003

Mr. President, I rise today to join my friend and colleague Senator Inhofe in introducing a bill that will make a real difference in schools on or near military bases, Indian reservations, and other Federal lands. Our bill will make the Impact Aid Program a Federal entitlement.

We require public schools to accept all children from military families and tribal reservations. It is the right thing to do. But families in Federal housing or on reservations do not pay local property taxes, a traditional revenue source for school districts. While Impact Aid was designed to make up the difference, we have not met our obligation to public schools. Instead, we have let the Impact Aid Program fall prey to the annual appropriations process. This means that payments to Impact Aid schools are never guaranteed, are usually underfunded, and rarely arrive on time. In fact, Impact Aid has not been fully funded since the early 1980s. The result of this underfunding can been seen in Impact Aid schools in States across the country. Schools are cutting programs and staff, not buying new books and materials, and deferring maintenance on buildings to help cover classroom costs. As a result, schools like Hays Lodge Pole School in Montana cannot teach their students and maintain their school facility; in the last couple of years, the Hays Lodge Pole School has been susceptible to electrical fires and other structural hazards.

I am so proud of the students, teachers, and administrators that learn and work in our Impact Aid districts. They have gone above and beyond to make due with scant resources. In many cases, however, we have stretched school districts to the breaking point. We have an obligation to our schools and the students. We can and must do better than we have in the past.

The bill that Senator Inhofe and I are introducing today will make a difference. It requires the Federal Government to meet its obligation to these schools. As a result, districts will know when and how much they will receive. The guesswork will vanish, and school leaders will be able to focus on student achievement instead of budget games.

I recognize that creating a Federal entitlement program is not an easy task. But Impact Aid is not like other discretionary programs. It was set up to compensate school districts for the ``substantial and continuing financial burden resulting from Federal activities.'' It is not a program that supplements local programming. It is the only game in town, and when we do not meet our Federal obligation, there is no other program to pick up the slack. Other Federal education programs, such as title I, supplement insufficient local resources.

Importantly, Impact Aid is a Federal program that addresses Federal needs. Our bill recognizes that providing Impact Aid resources on time and in full helps federally impacted students learn and achieve. It also recognizes that Impact Aid funds are better spent in our schools than on plane tickets and expenses for Impact Aid officials to come to Washington to fight for dollars that they inherently deserve.

Finally, I want to say a little about my personal perspective on education. I honestly believe there is nothing more important than giving our children the best opportunities to succeed in life. That is a principle I hold very deeply. Nothing we can do for our children will make a bigger difference in their lives than giving them a solid education. Education provides greater advantages in the workplace, and greater personal enrichment; both of which lead to future personal and professional success. I have always believed that a quality public education system is not only the right of every child, but also the key to smart economic development. The investments we make in our education system today will provide our children with the skills and knowledge to be successful in the 21st century economy.

Our bill recognizes the importance of education and makes sure that our federally impacted school districts receive the money they deserve. More importantly, our bill makes sure that students in federally impacted schools will have an education that will prepare them for personal and professional success.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a very important piece of legislation to modify the cooperative dividend allocation rule. I would like to thank Senator Grassley and my other colleagues that have signed on the bill for their support for correcting this rule.

America's agriculture industry has not had it easy in recent years. In Montana and other areas of the country, drought, low prices and the economic downturn have hit our farms and ranches hard. Over the past few years Congress has worked diligently to help our Nation's smaller agriculture producers. However, there is more work to be done.

Senator Grassley and I recently introduced ``The Tax Empowerment and

Relief for Farmers and Fisherman Act'', TERFF, with the intention of giving farmers the tools to help themselves. One provision within that Act deals with the payment of dividends on cooperatives' stock. Today we are introducing that provision on its own to emphasize the importance of changing the dividend allocation rule.

Currently, the dividend allocation rule reduces patronage income when a cooperative pays a dividend on capital stock from non-patronage earnings. This reduces the amount cooperatives can pay back to their farmer patrons and inhibits their ability to equity-finance operations.

Modifying this rule will make farmer cooperatives more competitive and provide better access to capital. This piece of legislation will help revitalize farmer cooperatives by providing more accurate tax treatment for patronage and non-patronage income.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the critical piece of legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr President, earlier this year, the House Republicans saddled the bipartisan, non-controversial AMBER Alert bill with numerous unrelated and ill-conceived provisions, collectively known as the ``Feeney amendment,'' that effectively overturned the basic structure of the carefully crafted sentencing guideline system. At the time, we were warned by distinguished jurists that these provisions would irrevocably harm our sentencing system and compromise justice. For example, the Nation's Chief Justice warned that the Feeney amendment, if enacted, ``would do serious harm to the basic structure of the sentencing guideline system and would seriously impair the ability of courts to impose just and responsible sentences.'' Despite such objections, and without any serious process in the House or Senate, these provisions were pushed through conference with minor changes and enacted.

We are now beginning to witness the far-reaching impact of this folly. Not only have we compromised the sentencing system, but we have alienated and minimized the effectiveness of our Federal judges, prompting at least one to announce early retirement.

As enacted, the Feeney amendment, substantially reversed provisions allowing Federal judges to depart from sentencing guidelines when justice requires. It also created a ``black list'' of judges who impose sentences that the Justice Department does not like, and limited the number of Federal judges who can serve on the Sentencing Commission, thus reducing the influence of practical judicial experience on sentencing decisions.

In response, in a June 24 op-ed in the New York Times, Republican- appointed district judge and former Federal prosecutor, John S. Martin, Jr., decried these provisions as ``an assault on judicial independence,'' ``at odds with the sentencing philosophy that has been a hallmark of the American system of justice,'' and tragically, the impetus for his decision to retire from the bench, rather than exercise his option to continue in a lifetime position with a reduced workload. ``When I took my oath of office 13 years ago I never thought I would leave the Federal bench. . . . I no longer want to be part of our unjust criminal justice system.''

It is shameful that we have allowed such half-baked, poorly-crafted legislation to lead to the loss of a judge that has dedicated his career to fighting crime and preserving justice. When he was appointed by the first President Bush in 1990, Judge Martin brought with him to the bench years of knowledge and experience as a Federal prosecutor, including 3 years as a U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. As a former Federal prosecutor, he is no slouch on crime. He knows very well the importance of vigorously pursuing and punishing wrong-doers. But his experience has also taught him that these goals cannot trounce the equally-critical pursuit of justice and fairness.

Unless we reverse the damaging provisions in the Feeney amendment, we will continue to compromise justice, alienate Federal judges, and threaten the stability and integrity of our judicial system. That is why I joined Senators Kennedy, Feingold, and Lautenberg in introducing the Judicial Use of Discretion to Guarantee Equity in Sentencing Act of 2003, or the JUDGES Act. This bill would correct the Feeney amendment's far-reaching provisions by restoring judicial discretion and allowing judges to impose just and responsible sentences. In addition, the JUDGES Act would reverse the provisions limiting the number of Federal judges who can serve on the Sentencing Commission. Finally, the JUDGES Act would follow through on the advice of Chief Justice Rehnquist to engage in a ``thorough and dispassionate inquiry'' on the Federal sentencing structure by directing the Sentencing Commission to conduct a comprehensive study on sentencing departures and report to Congress with 180 days.

In his New York Times op-ed, Judge Martin raised another important point: Limiting judicial discretion and involvement in sentencing practices also reduces the personal satisfaction that judges derive from knowing that they are integrally involved in promoting a more just society, and in doing so removes a powerful incentive that prompts potential judges to accept a judicial appointment, despite inadequate pay. ``When I became a Federal judge, I accepted the fact that I would be paid much less than I could earn in private practice. . . . I believed I would be compensated by the satisfaction of serving the public good--the administration of justice. In recent years, however, this sense has been replaced by the distress I feel at being part of a sentencing system that is unnecessarily cruel and rigid.''

We all know that judicial pay is a challenging issue. Indeed, this is why I introduced a bill, S. 787, to restore the many cost of living adjustments that Congress has failed to provide the judiciary, and have joined Chairman Hatch and many other members of the Judiciary Committee in sponsoring S. 1023 to increase the annual salaries of Federal judges and justices. I encourage my colleagues to support these efforts. But I ask them not to make the challenge of judicial pay worse by taking away the intangible compensation that is the satisfaction from serving the public good. Unfortunately, the Feeney amendment has done just that.

I again urge my colleagues to support the JUDGES Act, and I ask unanimous consent that Judge Martin's June 24 op-ed be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Lautenberg, Graham of Florida, and Lieberman to introduce the Wastewater Treatment Works Security and Safety Act. This legislation provides for the safety and security of our Nation's wastewater treatment works by providing needed funds to conduct vulnerability assessments and implement security improvements. In addition, this bill will ensure long-term safety and security by providing funds for researching innovative technologies and enhancing proven vulnerability assessment tools already in use.

Since the terrible events of September 11, we have taken several comprehensive steps to protect our water supplies and infrastructure. I have spoken on the many initiatives taking place on the Committee on Environment and Public Works and at the Environmental Protection Agency to protect our Nation's critical water infrastructure. I am pleased to say that we have made some progress.

EPA worked with State and local governments to expeditiously provide guidance on the protection of drinking water facilities from terrorist attacks. Based on the recommendations of Presidential Decision Directive 63, issued by President Clinton in 1998, the Environmental Protection Agency and its industry partner, the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, established a communications system, a water infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center, designed to provide real-time threat assessment data to water utilities throughout the Nation.

Last year, Senator Smith and I worked to include the authorization of $160 million for vulnerability assessments at drinking water facilities as part of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002. Despite our hard work during the conference, we were unable to include a provision in that bill for wastewater facilities due to jurisdictional issues in the House.

While these initial efforts are essential, our task is by no means finished. We cannot forget the vital importance of protecting our Nation's wastewater facilities. Everyday we take for granted the hundreds of thousand of miles of

pipes buried underground and the thousands of wastewater treatment works that keep our water clean and safe. Like all our Nation's critical infrastructure, the disruption or destruction of these structures could have a devastating impact on public safety, health, and the economy.

The legislation I am introducing today will take us one step further by authorizing support of ongoing efforts to develop and implement vulnerability assessments and emergency response plans at wastewater facilities.

Using existing tools such as the Sandia Laboratory's vulnerability assessment tool or the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Association's Vulnerability Self-Assessment Tool, treatment works will be able to securely identify critical areas of need. With the funds provided by this bill, EPA will also ensure that treatment works remedy areas of concerns. Using the results of the vulnerability assessment, treatment works will develop or revise emergency response plans to minimize damage if an attack were to occur.

This bill authorizes $180 million for fiscal years 2004 through 2008 for grants to conduct the vulnerability assessments and implement basic security enhancements. The bill also recognizes the need to address immediate and urgent security needs with a special $20 million authorization over 2004 and 2005.

In my home State of Vermont, we have only three towns of over 25,000 people. The small water facilities serving these communities have been particularly challenged to meet today's new homeland security challenges. Many times, water managers operate the town's water facilities as a part-time job or even as a free service. We must ensure that they are afforded the same consideration under this act as the medium and large facilities. This bill authorizes $15 million for grants to help small communities conduct vulnerability assessments, develop emergency response plans, and address potential threats to the treatment works. It also instructs the Administrator of the EPA to provide guidance to these communities on how to effectively use these security tools.

To ensure the continued development of wastewater security technologies, the Wastewater Treatment Works Security and Safety Act authorizes $15 million for research for 2004 through 2008. It also provides $500,000 to refine vulnerability self-assessment tools already in existence.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on this legislation and other efforts to enhance the security of our Nation's water infrastructure in the weeks, months, and years to come. We truly have something to protect--clean, safe, fresh water is worth our investment.

Mr. President, Senator Kerry and I are pleased to introduce the ``Fair and Independent Judiciary Act of 2003.'' This legislation arises from our belief that we must remain steadfast in our commitment to preserving the vitality of our third branch of government. Ensuring a fair and independent judiciary is critical to preserving the system of checks and balances established in our Constitution. The Fair and Independent Judiciary Act includes measures to respond to the shortfall in real judicial compensation, to repeal the link of judicial pay to congressional pay, to improve survivorship benefits, and to instill greater public confidence in our courts.

The National Commission on Public Service, a blue-ribbon panel of experts headed by Paul Volcker, recently concluded that Congress' budgetary treatment of this co-equal branch threatens its ability to perform its essential mission. This legislation addresses a problem that the Chief Justice has repeatedly brought to our attention--the decline in real judicial salaries.

As a member of both the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary, I have worked hard to help preserve a fair and independent judiciary. I was very disappointed that the Continuing Resolutions approved by Congress failed to give the Federal judiciary a cost-of- living adjustment, COLA, for fiscal year 2003.

Earlier this year, Senator Hatch and I were joined by Senator DeWine and Senator Specter to cosponsor legislation in the Senate to provide the Federal judiciary with a COLA for the present fiscal year. House Judiciary Chairman Sensenbrenner was joined by that Committee's Ranking Democratic Member, Congressman Conyers, and others to introduce identical legislation. Congress eventually passed a measure to give the Judiciary their cost of living adjustment for fiscal year 2003 but this effort failed to compensate the judiciary for many other previously skipped COLAs.

The Fair and Independent Judiciary Act would correct the earlier failures to provide COLAs and prevent this situation from happening again.

It is important to put our budgetary treatment of this co-equal branch in historical context. In 1975, Congress enacted the Executive Salary Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act, 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, mandating specific congressional action to give COLAs to judges.

Five times in the last decade Congress failed to provide the Judiciary with a COLA. We believe that this treatment was unfair to the judiciary and that we should restore their salaries to what they would be had the COLAs been granted. In order to have their salaries reflect the current cost of living we should unlink the salaries of Members of Congress and Members of the Judiciary by repealing Section 140.

In their thorough report, the Volcker Commission recommended that Congress unlink judicial salaries from those of Members of Congress. The Commission explained that due to ``the reluctance of members of Congress to risk the disapproval of their constituents . . . Congress has regularly permitted salaries to fall substantially behind cost-of- living increases.'' Urgent Business for America: Revitalizing the Federal Government for the 21st Century, January 2003, Recommendation 10. Therefore, the Commission found that ``executive and judicial salaries must be determined by procedures that tie them to the needs of the government, not the career-related political exigencies of members of Congress.''

The Fair and Independent Judiciary Act would restore the skipped cost of living adjustments that occurred in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999 and 2002 so that the salaries of our judges and justices are not outpaced by inflation.

Chief Justice Rehnquist has called judicial pay ``the most pressing issue'' facing the courts.

We look forward to Senate consideration of the Fair and Independent Judiciary Act to restore previously skipped cost of living adjustments for the Justices and judges of the United States. We hope we can all work together to preserve the vitality of our third branch of government and to instill even greater confidence in our federal courts.

I ask unanimous consent that the January 6, 2003 editorial from the Washington Post, and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, Senator Kerry and I are pleased to introduce the ``Fair and Independent Judiciary Act of 2003.'' This legislation arises from our belief that we must remain steadfast in our commitment to preserving the vitality of our third branch of government. Ensuring a fair and independent judiciary is critical to preserving the system of checks and balances established in our Constitution. The Fair and Independent Judiciary Act includes measures to respond to the shortfall in real judicial compensation, to repeal the link of judicial pay to congressional pay, to improve survivorship benefits, and to instill greater public confidence in our courts.

The National Commission on Public Service, a blue-ribbon panel of experts headed by Paul Volcker, recently concluded that Congress' budgetary treatment of this co-equal branch threatens its ability to perform its essential mission. This legislation addresses a problem that the Chief Justice has repeatedly brought to our attention--the decline in real judicial salaries.

As a member of both the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary, I have worked hard to help preserve a fair and independent judiciary. I was very disappointed that the Continuing Resolutions approved by Congress failed to give the Federal judiciary a cost-of- living adjustment, COLA, for fiscal year 2003.

Earlier this year, Senator Hatch and I were joined by Senator DeWine and Senator Specter to cosponsor legislation in the Senate to provide the Federal judiciary with a COLA for the present fiscal year. House Judiciary Chairman Sensenbrenner was joined by that Committee's Ranking Democratic Member, Congressman Conyers, and others to introduce identical legislation. Congress eventually passed a measure to give the Judiciary their cost of living adjustment for fiscal year 2003 but this effort failed to compensate the judiciary for many other previously skipped COLAs.

The Fair and Independent Judiciary Act would correct the earlier failures to provide COLAs and prevent this situation from happening again.

It is important to put our budgetary treatment of this co-equal branch in historical context. In 1975, Congress enacted the Executive Salary Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act, 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, mandating specific congressional action to give COLAs to judges.

Five times in the last decade Congress failed to provide the Judiciary with a COLA. We believe that this treatment was unfair to the judiciary and that we should restore their salaries to what they would be had the COLAs been granted. In order to have their salaries reflect the current cost of living we should unlink the salaries of Members of Congress and Members of the Judiciary by repealing Section 140.

In their thorough report, the Volcker Commission recommended that Congress unlink judicial salaries from those of Members of Congress. The Commission explained that due to ``the reluctance of members of Congress to risk the disapproval of their constituents . . . Congress has regularly permitted salaries to fall substantially behind cost-of- living increases.'' Urgent Business for America: Revitalizing the Federal Government for the 21st Century, January 2003, Recommendation 10. Therefore, the Commission found that ``executive and judicial salaries must be determined by procedures that tie them to the needs of the government, not the career-related political exigencies of members of Congress.''

The Fair and Independent Judiciary Act would restore the skipped cost of living adjustments that occurred in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999 and 2002 so that the salaries of our judges and justices are not outpaced by inflation.

Chief Justice Rehnquist has called judicial pay ``the most pressing issue'' facing the courts.

We look forward to Senate consideration of the Fair and Independent Judiciary Act to restore previously skipped cost of living adjustments for the Justices and judges of the United States. We hope we can all work together to preserve the vitality of our third branch of government and to instill even greater confidence in our federal courts.

I ask unanimous consent that the January 6, 2003 editorial from the Washington Post, and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.