[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18846-18847]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                      HONORARIA FOR FEDERAL JUDGES

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, Senator Reid and I would like to offer a 
few observations at this point. I thank my colleagues for allowing us 
to proceed before them regarding the general order.
  We want to offer a few observations with respect to what I understand 
is a proposal to remove Federal Judges and Justices from the 
prohibition on honoraria, a proposal that would also remove the 
honoraria from the limitation on outside earned income. I strongly 
oppose that effort.
  This seems manifestly a very wrong approach to what may be a very 
real problem. The alternative offered in this proposal of having the 
Nation's most esteemed jurists turn to the lecture circuit to 
supplement their salary, I believe, is simply unacceptable. The cost, 
it seems to me, would be too high. It would be measured in the further 
loss of confidence in the integrity of this Government's officials. 
Congress took an important step in trying to restore public confidence 
in the institutions of Government when it enacted the honoraria ban as 
part of the ethics reform package way back in 1989. I remember the 
discussion of it and the debate well in the House of Representatives, 
as I served in the House at that time. We should not backtrack on that 
effort. If our Federal Judges and Justices need a pay raise, then by 
all means let's provide for one, but let's not retreat to the 
discredited practices of the past.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Roberts for his comments 
and also for the work he does on a daily basis for the Ethics 
Committee. He works tirelessly, without complaint, and does an 
outstanding job for the Senate and the people of this country. Again, I 
thank the chairman for his comments regarding this matter. I have the 
greatest respect for Chief Justice Rehnquist. He has rendered great 
service to the country. I think he has been a good Justice. For 
example, almost 2 years ago now, he was the Presiding Officer in this 
body in one of the most difficult situations we have had in this 
country, dealing with the impeachment of the President. He did an 
exemplary job. I thought he was outstanding. But I believe on this 
issue he is wrong. He spoke out that the Judges should have honoraria. 
They don't need honoraria. I believe there is a great deal of truth in 
the observation that there was little honor in the honoraria practices 
of years ago.
  Although a portion of the honoraria ban was declared unconstitutional 
by the Supreme Court, after which the Department of Justice Office of 
Legal Counsel indicated that they would not enforce the ban in any part 
of government, notwithstanding these actions, the honoraria ban has 
continued in force by rule of the Senate, and for

[[Page 18847]]

Members and highly paid staff in the House as well. It also appears 
that the judicial branch has continued to recognize and abide by the 
ban. I think it is wonderful that they have done so. So there is much 
to be preserved here, and let's not undo what has already set a pattern 
for good government.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator, my 
good friend, for his very kind remarks in reference to my service on 
the Ethics Committee. I repeat the same basic substance of what he said 
on his behalf as well. It is a thankless and tireless but a very 
important job. I thank him for his comments.
  As chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Ethics Committee, we 
obviously and naturally have discussed this. So I know the strength of 
his views on this matter as well. Not only do I think this would be a 
very dramatic step backwards for us in terms of the public's perception 
of integrity of its Government, but I think it would be terribly unfair 
to the most conscientious Judges and Justices. Because a Judge's income 
from honoraria would depend on how often appearances and speeches were 
made, those who dedicate the most time and attention to their job as a 
judge would end up benefiting the least.
  As I have indicated before, if we have a problem--and I think we do--
regarding salaries for Judges, we ought to address the problem in that 
way.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. REID. I will only add, Mr. President, because the proposal allows 
for but does not guarantee limits--for example, there are no 
limitations on the amount of the honoraria or the number of honoraria 
received--there is always the potential for many other problems. The 
Senator from Kansas and I agree that the problem with this proposal is 
not that it needs to be tinkered with or fine-tuned; the problem is 
that it takes us in the wrong direction. If the Judges need more 
compensation, we should address that in Congress and pay them more 
money.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, we do agree. As a proposed cure for 
lagging judicial salaries, my colleague and friend, the vice chairman 
of the committee, and I believe that this is not the proper step. It 
would set a dangerous precedent in regards to the Congress of the 
United States.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________