Federal Judges Want Speaking Fees

A Senate committee has proposed a change in the law that would allow federal judges to receive speaking fees, a practice critics say would raise ethical questions.

The Appropriations Committee inserted the change in an appropriations bill for the departments of State, Commerce and Justice that is working its way through the Senate.

Along with members of Congress, elected officers and federal employees, federal judges were banned from receiving speaking fees, also called honoraria, in 1989. They can receive honoraria in his or her name only if it is donated to charity.

The version of the appropriations bill reported out of committee on Sept. 8 states that the ban "shall not apply to any individual while that individual is a justice or judge of the United States."

Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist supported the change in an April letter to Sen. Mitch McConnell, R.-Ky., who had sponsored legislation removing the ban.

"The disparity between the salaries of the judicial and legal profession cannot continue without compromising the morale of the federal judiciary and eventually its quality," Rehnquist wrote. "Legislation that lifts or significantly alters the ban on honoraria would provide some assistance."

Supreme Court judges make between $173,600 and $181,400 a year. According to the National Law Journal, Circuit court of appeals judges have a salary of $145,000. Judges in district, bankruptcy, court of claims, and other federal courts make between $125,764 and $136,700.

Steve Weissman, legislative representative for Public Citzen's Congress Watch, said the problem with revoking the honoraria ban is "there could be either the reality or the appearance of corruption."

"The policy reason behind the ban was that members of Congress and members of the Federal bench ought not be getting paid by interest that might have business before the Congress or the courts," said Matt Keller, deputy legislative director for Common Cause.

For example, if the ban were revoked, Keller said, a judge could be paid to speak to the corporate board or CEO of a company that has a case in that judge's court.

But McConnell, writing to the head of the subcommittee that overseas spending for the courts, New Hampshire Republican Judd Gregg, to ask for the language to be inserted into the appropriations bill, said in May, "Federal judges are qualitatively different from members of Congress and other government employees in that they serve under a lifetime appointment."

He said many judges are deciding cases argued by young lawyers making much more than the judges do.

Critics are worried that revoking the ban on honoraria for judges will have a domino effect for other federal offices.

Indeed, McConnell wrote that "a strong argument could be made that the honoraria ban should be substantially modified or repealed for all three branches of government," although he only proposed language pertaining to judges.

Opponents of the change question how that language became part of the spending bill, which awaits action by the full Senate.

"It was very quietly added to that bill," said Sen. Russ Feingold, D.-Wis., on the Senate floor this week. "It takes up only a page-and-a-half of 126 pages of legislative language."

He also criticized the Appropriations committee for failing to explain the change in its report to the full Senate, stating merely that that section of the bill changes U.S. Code.

Opponents are worried that as Congress wraps up business for the fall, the honoraria provision—will be further obscured if the bill it's a part of gets folded into a bigger, omnibus spending bill.

"There is a real danger this will kind of be slipped in unbeknownst to some people at the end of the session," said Wasserman.

The possibility of lifting the ban is broachefrom time to time, but observers say it has never proceeded as far as it has this year.

By JARRETT MURPHY