Federal Judicial Fairness Act of 2006

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Fairness in Judicial Salaries Act.

This legislation is needed to prevent a continuing decline in the pay of our Federal judges and prevent damage to the quality of our judiciary.

Impartial, dedicated, and wise judges are critical to our justice system. Nevertheless, in the past three decades, our Federal judges have been neglected.

Since 1969, the salaries of Federal judges have declined by nearly 24 percent in inflation adjusted dollars. By comparison, in the same time period the salary of the average American worker has increased over 15 percent.

Since 1993, when Congress last passed a comprehensive revision of Federal salaries, real judicial pay has declined about 10 percent.

The drop in judicial pay is even more stark when compared to judges' peers in the legal community.

In 1969, the salary of a Federal district court judge was about 20 percent higher than the salary of a top law school dean and about 30 percent higher than that of a senior law professor at a top law school. In contrast, today, top law school deans make twice as much as district court judges, and senior law professors at those schools make nearly 50 percent more.

Today, partners at major law firms routinely make three, four or five times what Federal judges make. Furthermore, first year law school graduates at these law firms make more than experienced Federal judges.

While judges are making less, they are also working more. In the same time period that judges pay has declined by nearly 24 percent, the caseload for district court judges has climbed by 58.4 percent and the caseload of Circuit Court judges has jumped 211.4 percent.

While fairness alone would require a reasonable salary for judges, the growing pay disparity between judges and other members of the legal profession poses a real threat to the quality of our judiciary.

In order to ensure that our judiciary can continue to attract--and-- keep top attorneys, it is imperative that judges' salaries be increased to at least make up for some of the loss in real pay that has taken place in the last 30 years.

In 2003, the National Commission on the Public Service, also known as the Volcker Commission, concluded that ``the lag in judicial salaries has gone on too long, and the potential for the diminished quality in American jurisprudence is now too large.''

In a July 15, 2002 statement to the National Commission on the Public Service, the late Chief Justice Rehnquist said inadequate compensation seriously compromises the judicial independence fostered by life tenure. The prospect that low salaries might force judges to return to the private sector rather than stay on the bench risks affecting judicial performance.

Chief Justice Rehnquist's views were echoed by new Chief Justice Roberts in his State of the Judiciary Address from earlier this year. Chief Justice Roberts said the following:

If judges' salaries are too low, judges effectively serve

for a term dictated by their financial position rather than

for life. Figures gathered by the Administrative Office show

that judges are leaving the bench in greater numbers now than

ever before. In the 1960s, only a handful of district and

appellate court judges retired or resigned; since 1990, 92

judges have left the bench. Of those, 21 left before reaching

retirement age. Fifty-nine of them stepped down to enter the

private practice of law. In the past five years alone, 37

judges have left the federal bench--nine of them in the last

year.

There will always be a substantial difference in pay

between successful government and private sector lawyers. But

if that difference remains too large, as it is today, the

judiciary will over time cease to be made up of a diverse

group of the Nation's very best lawyers. Instead, it will

come to be staffed by a combination of the independently

wealthy and those following a career path before becoming a

judge different from the practicing bar at large. Such a

development would dramatically alter the nature of the

federal judiciary.

Many of the judges that have left the bench in recent years cited financial considerations as a major factor in their decisions to leave the bench.

In my home State of California, several Federal judges have gone on the record to say that they left the Federal bench because of financial pressures. Some of these judges have even taken jobs in the California State judiciary, since the State courts offer better salaries than the Federal bench.

As a result of the linkage of judicial salaries with the salaries of Members of Congress, when Congress has voted to deny itself a cost-of- living adjustment, as it has in 5 of the last 12 years, it has simultaneously denied all Federal judges cost-of-living adjustments, as well. Consequently, the real pay of judges has declined.

I am not suggesting that judges be paid as much as partners at law firms; however, they should receive a fair salary. The legislation that I introduce today, the Federal Judicial Fairness Act, provides a straightforward solution.

First, the act terminates the linkage of congressional pay increase to judicial pay increases, so that Congress's decision to deny itself pay raises will not also place that burden on Federal judges.

Second, the act increases the salaries of all Federal judges by 16.5 percent, in order to at least partially make up for the decline in real pay for judges over the last three decades. In 2003, both President Bush and Chief Justice Rehnquist agreed that a pay adjustment of at least 16.5 percent was needed.

Finally, the act would provide Federal judges with annual cost-of- living adjustments based on the employee cost Index, an index already used by the Federal Government to help Federal salaries keep up with inflation.

The cost of this salary increase would be only $41.3 million, a relatively small sum to safeguard the quality and independence of our judiciary.

Our Federal judges make many sacrifices in serving our Nation and a cut in pay is one of these sacrifices. However, the disparity between judicial salaries and salaries in the rest of the legal profession has grown so wide that the quality of our judicial system may be endangered. It is time to provide these critical public servants with a fair salary that will guarantee the future health of the judiciary.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Fairness in Judicial Salaries Act.

This legislation is needed to prevent a continuing decline in the pay of our Federal judges and prevent damage to the quality of our judiciary.

Impartial, dedicated, and wise judges are critical to our justice system. Nevertheless, in the past three decades, our Federal judges have been neglected.

Since 1969, the salaries of Federal judges have declined by nearly 24 percent in inflation adjusted dollars. By comparison, in the same time period the salary of the average American worker has increased over 15 percent.

Since 1993, when Congress last passed a comprehensive revision of Federal salaries, real judicial pay has declined about 10 percent.

The drop in judicial pay is even more stark when compared to judges' peers in the legal community.

In 1969, the salary of a Federal district court judge was about 20 percent higher than the salary of a top law school dean and about 30 percent higher than that of a senior law professor at a top law school. In contrast, today, top law school deans make twice as much as district court judges, and senior law professors at those schools make nearly 50 percent more.

Today, partners at major law firms routinely make three, four or five times what Federal judges make. Furthermore, first year law school graduates at these law firms make more than experienced Federal judges.

While judges are making less, they are also working more. In the same time period that judges pay has declined by nearly 24 percent, the caseload for district court judges has climbed by 58.4 percent and the caseload of Circuit Court judges has jumped 211.4 percent.

While fairness alone would require a reasonable salary for judges, the growing pay disparity between judges and other members of the legal profession poses a real threat to the quality of our judiciary.

In order to ensure that our judiciary can continue to attract--and-- keep top attorneys, it is imperative that judges' salaries be increased to at least make up for some of the loss in real pay that has taken place in the last 30 years.

In 2003, the National Commission on the Public Service, also known as the Volcker Commission, concluded that ``the lag in judicial salaries has gone on too long, and the potential for the diminished quality in American jurisprudence is now too large.''

In a July 15, 2002 statement to the National Commission on the Public Service, the late Chief Justice Rehnquist said inadequate compensation seriously compromises the judicial independence fostered by life tenure. The prospect that low salaries might force judges to return to the private sector rather than stay on the bench risks affecting judicial performance.

Chief Justice Rehnquist's views were echoed by new Chief Justice Roberts in his State of the Judiciary Address from earlier this year. Chief Justice Roberts said the following:

If judges' salaries are too low, judges effectively serve

for a term dictated by their financial position rather than

for life. Figures gathered by the Administrative Office show

that judges are leaving the bench in greater numbers now than

ever before. In the 1960s, only a handful of district and

appellate court judges retired or resigned; since 1990, 92

judges have left the bench. Of those, 21 left before reaching

retirement age. Fifty-nine of them stepped down to enter the

private practice of law. In the past five years alone, 37

judges have left the federal bench--nine of them in the last

year.

There will always be a substantial difference in pay

between successful government and private sector lawyers. But

if that difference remains too large, as it is today, the

judiciary will over time cease to be made up of a diverse

group of the Nation's very best lawyers. Instead, it will

come to be staffed by a combination of the independently

wealthy and those following a career path before becoming a

judge different from the practicing bar at large. Such a

development would dramatically alter the nature of the

federal judiciary.

Many of the judges that have left the bench in recent years cited financial considerations as a major factor in their decisions to leave the bench.

In my home State of California, several Federal judges have gone on the record to say that they left the Federal bench because of financial pressures. Some of these judges have even taken jobs in the California State judiciary, since the State courts offer better salaries than the Federal bench.

As a result of the linkage of judicial salaries with the salaries of Members of Congress, when Congress has voted to deny itself a cost-of- living adjustment, as it has in 5 of the last 12 years, it has simultaneously denied all Federal judges cost-of-living adjustments, as well. Consequently, the real pay of judges has declined.

I am not suggesting that judges be paid as much as partners at law firms; however, they should receive a fair salary. The legislation that I introduce today, the Federal Judicial Fairness Act, provides a straightforward solution.

First, the act terminates the linkage of congressional pay increase to judicial pay increases, so that Congress's decision to deny itself pay raises will not also place that burden on Federal judges.

Second, the act increases the salaries of all Federal judges by 16.5 percent, in order to at least partially make up for the decline in real pay for judges over the last three decades. In 2003, both President Bush and Chief Justice Rehnquist agreed that a pay adjustment of at least 16.5 percent was needed.

Finally, the act would provide Federal judges with annual cost-of- living adjustments based on the employee cost Index, an index already used by the Federal Government to help Federal salaries keep up with inflation.

The cost of this salary increase would be only $41.3 million, a relatively small sum to safeguard the quality and independence of our judiciary.

Our Federal judges make many sacrifices in serving our Nation and a cut in pay is one of these sacrifices. However, the disparity between judicial salaries and salaries in the rest of the legal profession has grown so wide that the quality of our judicial system may be endangered. It is time to provide these critical public servants with a fair salary that will guarantee the future health of the judiciary.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce legislation with my colleague from South Dakota, Senator Johnson, that will help ease the financial burden for American families who open their homes to foreign exchange students from around the world, and offer an incentive to additional families to get involved in international exchanges.

Every year, approximately 30,000 American families host exchange students from all over the world. This exchange experience provides the families, their communities, the students and their schools with a unique educational opportunity to increase cultural awareness and understanding. And it often produces lifelong friendship as well.

Exchange programs are vital in today's interconnected world to build bridges of understanding. Youth exchange is particularly critical as it allows young people the opportunity to gain exposure to American families, culture and values early in their lives. Participants take home an understanding and often an appreciation for America's people, society and values.

At her confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee early last year, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice declared, ``I am a big proponent of student exchanges. It is the best policy we can have.'' She explained that, ``the presence of foreign students'' is ``one of the best things'' for American students; the experience ``changes the way we think about people, and the way they think about us'', and she called student exchange ``invaluable.''

We could not agree with her more. The legislation we introduce today will encourage more American families to participate in exchanges by increasing the monthly tax deduction for host families from $50 to $200 per month. The current $50 tax deduction has been in place since it was first introduced in the 1960s. It has never been increased to allow for inflation or to reflect the increasing costs associated with hosting a student. Our legislation will increase the monthly deduction with an annual adjustment for inflation.

While the increase is certainly not enough cover the expenses involved in feeding and housing a teenager, it will offer needed cost relief to American families, and most importantly, it will send a strong message to these families that our Nation values their contribution to increasing international understanding.

I hope that my Senate colleagues will join Senator Johnson and me in supporting this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Foreign Language Training Act of 2006, a bill that I believe is necessary for the success of our Department of Homeland Security personnel and other Federal agents.

As you may know, our Department of Defense employees receive foreign language education and training at the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center. This school has provided training for American forces involved in arms control treaty verification, the war on drugs, and Operation Desert Storm.

I believe the Department of Defense's success can provide guidance for Department of Homeland Security personnel and Federal law enforcement agents who need foreign language skills. The Foreign Language Training Act of 2006 provides for such guidance by creating a facility similar to the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center for these Federal employees.

My bill requires the Secretary of Homeland Security and other Federal agency leaders to identify employees who need foreign language education and plan for the provision of such education. To fully utilize existing Federal assets, the Foreign Language Training Act requires this training to take place at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Artesia, New Mexico. FLETC is already planning to increase its language training capabilities and construct new language arts facilities in Artesia to accommodate the increased number of border patrol trainees being sent there, so it makes sense for other DHS employees and Federal agents to utilize this facility as well.

Mr. President, the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center has prepared our soldiers for World War II, the Cold War, the Korean War, and the Vietman conflict. It continues to provide such training today. I believe that similar training is necessary for the men and women securing our homeland, and the Foreign Language Training Act of 2006 provides for such education.

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