The Judicial Conference's Judicial Branch Committee has been quick to respond to the Senate's budget plan to freeze pay increases for judges until the year 2002. The committee notified both houses of the dire effect of a seven-year freeze on federal judges' salaries.
"I respectfully submit that if this provision is enacted, it will have a profound adverse impact on the quality and pluralism of the federal Judiciary for many future decades," wrote Judge Barefoot Sanders (N.D. Tex.), chairman of the Judicial Branch Committee, in a letter he sent to both the chairman and ranking members of the Senate and House Budget Committees.
At this stage, only the Senate budget balancing plan contains a freeze on the pay of judges, members of Congress, and Senior Executive Service Employees. These federal officials last received an increase in compensation in 1993.
"I suggest that, before denying federal judges cost-of-living adjustments for nine consecutive years, Congress should inquire: Should American citizens have a significant diminution in the quality of justice in our federal courts in order to save the modest expense of annual cost-of-living adjustments for judges?" Sanders asked in his letter. "I believe that our nation will be much better served by a salary structure for the federal Judiciary that will continue to attract and retain judges of extraordinary capabilities who come from diverse backgrounds and experiences."
The judges' concern over their compensation is supported by the irregular pace of increases they have received in recent years. Judges first were covered by a statutory provision for annual pay adjustments in 1975, when the Executive Salary Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act was passed. This law provided that judges would receive the same percentage increase accorded General Schedule employees. However, the provisions of this act rarely were implemented because in subsequent years Congress passed separate measures cutting off such raises for themselves and others. A further limitation was placed on federal judges in 1981 when section 140 of Public Law 97-92 was enacted, which provides that no salary increase shall be given to judges in the absence of specific legislative action.
Finally, in 1989 Congress passed the Ethics Reform Act, which provided a catch-up pay raise of approximately 33 percent over two years. At that time, judicial salaries in real terms had declined 30 percent over the preceding two decades. Over the same period-1969 to 1988-more judges left the federal bench for economic reasons than in all the time from the establishment of the federal Judiciary in 1789 to 1969. Pay increases were approved for the first two years under the 1989 act, but starting in 1993, the freeze on increases first occurred.
In his letter, Sanders cautioned that a freeze in judges' pay could result in Congress having to take the politically unpopular position of voting for a large catch-up increase in the future, as was the case in 1989.
"I hope that, after the most careful deliberation, you will conclude that the modest cost-of-living adjustments for judges, which are provided for under the Ethics Reform Act, are both fair and essential," Sanders wrote. "That act is sound law and should be allowed to continue to operate."