The second session of the 104th Congress failed to produce an Employment Cost Index (ECI) adjustment for congressional members, top officials of the Executive branch, and federal judges. Indeed, section 637 of H.R. 3610, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 1997, contains a provision that denies top government officials a modest 2.3 percent ECI adjustment. As a result, and despite the efforts of the Judicial Conference and its committees, judges' associations, and the Administrative Office, judges will be deprived of a cost-of-living adjustment for a fourth consecutive year.
When it was introduced earlier this summer, the House Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies appropriations bill contained funding for a judges' ECI adjustment. However, the House overwhelmingly approved an amendment to the bill denying congressional members, executive branch officials, and judges an ECI adjustment.
In late July, AO Director Leonidas Ralph Mecham wrote to Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL), the chair of the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations, as well as Ranking Minority Member, Senator Bob Kerrey (D-NE), urging that a pay adjustment for judges be approved. A similar letter also was sent to Senator Mark Hatfield (R-OR), chair of the Committee on Appropriations, and Ranking Minority Member, Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV). The Senate reported out the appropriations bill without a provision blocking an ECI adjustment for top government officials, including judges. Although Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC) later offered an amendment on behalf of Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN) that would have denied an ECI adjustment to congressional members and cabinet officials, the amendment would not have blocked an ECI adjustment for judges.
As the 104th Congress wound down, the House packaged an omnibus appropriations bill into the Defense Appropriations Conference Report. This bill included an amendment denying congressional members, executive branch officials, and judges an ECI adjustment for 1997. The House passed the bill and sent it to the Senate, which accepted the House provision in conference.
Proceeding on a different track was S. 1344, which was introduced in October 1995 by Senator Howell T. Heflin (D-AL.). It would sever the linkage between judges' salaries and the salaries of members of Congress and Executive Schedule personnel, and repeal section 140 of P.L. 97-92, which provides that no salary increase shall be administered to judges in the absence of specific legislative action. In sum, this legislation would provide that judges' salaries would be adjusted automatically on an annual basis, assuming economic conditions so justified.
Shortly after Heflin introduced S. 1344, Representatives Roger F. Wicker (R-MS), Frederick K. Heineman (R-NC), and Eva M. Clayton (D-NC) sponsored similar legislation, H.R. 2701.
The Judiciary as well as the judges' associations strongly urged Congress to support S. 1344 and H.R. 2701. However, hearings were never held on the bills, and they failed to clear the respective Judiciary subcommittees.