[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 145 (Tuesday, October 13, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H10802-H10803]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            JUDICIAL ATTENDANCE AT PRIVATELY-FUNDED SEMINARS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I think everybody here would agree that it 
would be unfair for a judge to accept an expense paid vacation from one 
party in a lawsuit. That is why there are judicial ethics rules against 
accepting gifts from anyone who is likely to appear in a judge's court. 
But suppose a corporation, instead of paying directly, gives money to a 
foundation to pay for

[[Page H10803]]

the vacation indirectly. Does that make it all right? Of course not.
  Believe it or not, it happens routinely, and apparently it is okay 
under the current reading of the Judicial Code of Conduct.
  Earlier this year, The Washington Post reported that a substantial 
number of Federal judges had attended or were planning to attend 
seminars run by a group called the Foundation for Research on Economics 
and the Environment, known by the acronym FREE.
  FREE, with funding from several oil and mining companies and other 
groups, invited Federal judges to a Montana guest ranch for seminars on 
alternatives to traditional environmental laws. The ethical 
implications of these vacation seminars need careful review. That is 
why I authored report language to the Commerce, Justice, State, 
Judiciary Appropriations bill requesting the Judicial Conference to 
examine the ethical considerations that bear on judges' decisions to 
attend this type of seminar.
  Specifically, it requested a review of the extent to which a judge's 
acceptance of sponsor-paid travel and lodging raise questions under the 
Code of Conduct and applicable law and of the ability of the Judicial 
Conference to give ethical advice to judges about attending particular 
seminars.
  While the CJSJ bill was pending in committee, I received a letter 
from the director of the Administrative Office of the Courts assuring 
me they were aware of the concerns raised in the press and by Congress 
and were addressing them.
  Really? When Judicial Conference Committee on Codes of Conduct met 
last month, they evidently saw no need to revise or supplement their 
current guidance on the issues raised by our committee's report. This 
guidance is apparently contained in a single advisory opinion which 
states that judges may accept a gift of free lodging and expenses, ``so 
long as the donor is not a party in litigation before and its interests 
are not likely to come before the invited judge.''
  The Judicial Code of Conduct is not limited to avoiding direct 
conflicts of interest, however. Canon Two of the Code states, ``A judge 
should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all 
activities.'' In other words, a judge must not only be impartial but 
must inspire the confidence of all parties that their cases will be 
tried solely on the merits.
  Under the interpretation provided by the Judicial Conference, judges 
may accept gifts in the form of free travel and vacation seminars so 
long as they are not directly sponsored by an entity likely to appear 
as a party to a case, and the judge need not investigate further. This 
allows persons or corporations interested in Federal litigation 
effectively to launder their gifts to judges by passing them through a 
nonprofit foundation.
  If it is not ethical to accept gifts from those with current or 
likely interests in litigation, can it honestly be made ethical by 
having these gifts pass through a foundation? Should not the Judicial 
Conference require full disclosure in advance of all sources of funding 
for such seminar trips, so judges can make informed decisions and so 
the public can evaluate any questionable circumstances?
  The Judicial Conference's response relies on the argument that the 
contributors do not necessarily control the views conveyed in these 
seminars. But how realistic is that? The fact is, the contributors give 
money precisely because they support the views expressed in the 
seminars or, more accurately, the seminars exist to propound their 
views.

                              {time}  1845

  Certainly everyone has a right to communicate their views on the law 
to judges, and it is healthy for lawyers, economists, judges to discuss 
the law, including novel theories. The Federal Judicial Center, the 
educational arm of the judicial branch, sponsors seminars to do just 
that.
  The problem comes with the inducement to judges of free travel and 
lodging, sometimes worth thousands of dollars, paid for by corporations 
and others to promote a particular school of thought. This is difficult 
to reconcile with the obligation to avoid the appearance of 
impropriety. Free travel and lodging paid for once removed by those 
with a stake in litigation is okay as long as it is couched in terms of 
an educational seminar? You have got to be kidding.
  Parsing the educational content of a particular seminar makes no 
sense. It is the receipt of gifts from those interested in litigation 
and with an ideological ax to grind that creates the problem, not the 
curriculum of the seminar that provides cover for the gift.
  The Judicial Conference needs to look again at this issue, this time 
keeping in mind there are no free lunches, or in this case, vacations.

                          ____________________