[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 112 (Wednesday, September 20, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8809-S8810]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           JUDICIAL HONORARIA

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to express my 
deep concern about a provision that is tucked into the Commerce, State, 
Justice appropriations bill. It came to light in a front page story 
last Thursday in the Washington Post. We have become accustomed in this 
body to hearing about outrageous special interest provisions finding 
their way into must-pass appropriations bills, but this one is really 
special. Section 305 of the bill that was reported by the 
Appropriations Committee exempts Federal judges from the ban on 
receiving cash honoraria contained in the Ethics in Government Act.
  If this provision becomes law, Federal judges will once again be able 
to accept cash compensation for speeches. There will be no limit on 
this additional compensation because the bill also provides that 
honoraria will not be considered outside income, which is subject under 
current law to a cap equal to 15 percent of the salary of a Level II 
executive employee, or about $22,000. With this change, Federal judges 
will be able to supplement their Federal salaries of over $140,000 per 
year with tens of thousands of dollars from speaking engagements.
  The Federal judiciary as a whole is widely respected, and deservedly 
so. But it has been a bad few months for the reputation of the 
judiciary. Even before this effort to lift the honoraria ban, there has 
been increasing attention to the practice of Federal judges traveling 
to posh resorts and dude ranches to attend seminars and conferences. 
These junkets are ``all-expenses paid,'' and the bill is often footed 
by legal foundations and industry groups with litigation interests 
before the very judges who attend the seminars.
  A recent report released by Community Rights Council found that at 
least 1,030 Federal judges took over 5,800 privately funded trips 
between 1992 and 1998. Some of these seminars are conducted at posh 
vacation resorts in locations such as Amelia Island, FL and Hilton 
Head, SC, and include ample time for expense-paid recreation. These 
kinds of education/vacation trips, which have been valued at over 
$7,000 in some cases, create an appearance that the judges who attend 
are profiting from their positions. More important, they create an 
appearance that is not consistent with the image of an impartial 
judiciary.
  That is the same image that is threatened by this proposed repeal of 
the honoraria ban. Who in this body believes that the powerful 
interests that seek our good will through campaign contributions would 
not try to curry favor with judges with generous honoraria? Have we 
learned nothing over the past two decades? In 1989, the Congress took a 
big step forward by increasing the salaries of federal employees and 
prohibiting honoraria. Perhaps we need to revisit the issue of the 
salaries of federal judges in light of current economic circumstances. 
But one thing I am absolutely certain we should not

[[Page S8810]]

do is relax the ethical standards to which they are subject. The 
independence and impartiality of the judiciary are too important to our 
system of justice. This would truly be a case of cutting off our nose 
to spite our face.

  Now let me say a few words about the process by which this 
significant change in the ethical guidelines that apply to judges has 
come close to becoming law. The provision was included in the bill 
reported by the Appropriations Committee on July 18. It was very 
quietly added to that bill. It takes up only a page and a half of 126 
pages of legislative language. And the committee report, which usually 
can be counted on to explain the bill says the following about section 
305:

       * * * section 305 amends section 501 of 5 U.S.C. App.

  That is it. No explanation, no rationale, no argument for why this 
change should be made, or why it is being done in an appropriations 
bill instead of in substantive legislation that might be the subject--
which you might imagine we would like to have--of hearing and committee 
consideration.
  At any rate, the Commerce State Justice appropriations bill still has 
not yet come to the floor and now it appears very likely it will never 
come to the floor. That means that those of us who oppose the lifting 
of the honoraria ban, not to mention other troubling provisions in that 
bill, will never have a chance to offer an amendment to delete it from 
the bill. We will never have a chance to ask our colleagues to vote on 
this provision. We will never know whether the United States Senate 
supports what the Appropriations Committee has done.
  I think that is outrageous. We should be ashamed. This is a very 
important revision to the Ethics in Government Act. The Senate should 
be permitted to vote on it. But the Republican leadership will not let 
that happen. That means that the crucial decision will be made by the 
appropriators in their mock conference, and by the negotiators of a 
final omnibus spending bill.
  It appears that lifting the honoraria ban for judges in some of our 
colleagues' minds is just a first step to allowing other public 
officials to supplement their salaries with payments from special 
interests. The majority leader was quoted as saying that we'll probably 
need to get rid of the ban for Members of Congress as well. I urge the 
people who are crafting these bills to think twice before starting down 
this slippery slope. Let's keep the honoraria ban in place for judges 
and ensure that our judiciary maintains its integrity and the respect 
of the American people.

                          ____________________