Meese Aide Raps Congress, Urges Ban on Its Honoraria : Says No One Has ‘Sleaze Monopoly’

A top Justice Department official criticized Congress today for establishing a “disturbing, if not dangerous” double standard that penalizes government officials who accept payments but exempts themselves.

Assistant Atty. Gen. William Weld, head of the Justice Department’s criminal division, called for a “curb of the potentially corrupting influence” of such fees or honorariums on congressmen’s votes.

After his speech at the National Press Club, Weld denied that he was mounting a Justice Department effort to counter criticism in Congress about the Administration’s ethics.

“I am not a Hill-basher,” he said. “I’m not saying that one branch (of the government) has the monopoly on sleaze.”

Former top White House aides Michael K. Deaver and Lyn Nofziger were recently convicted on charges of perjury and illegal lobbying respectively.

Weld’s boss, Atty. Gen. Edwin Meese III, has been under investigation over his role in an aborted Iraqi oil pipeline deal and his involvement in helping the scandal-plagued Wedtech Corp. win government contracts.

In his speech, Weld said that he agreed there was a need for independent counsels for investigations of high-ranking officials and that he fully supported the 1978 ethics law now in place.

‘It’s a Good Statute’

In a departure from the policy of the department, which has opposed the law in a key test case now pending before the Supreme Court on the ground that it unconstitutionally seizes executive authority, Weld said:

“I like the Ethics in Government Act. I think it is a good statute. I think it deserves to be enforced.”

The former U.S. attorney from Boston also said the department’s pursuit of public corruption cases nationwide continues with vigor despite the recent cloud of allegations hanging over Meese.

Weld, who oversees much of the Justice Department’s prosecution activities and processes requests for independent counsels, suggested that the dozens of Administration officials investigated over the last seven years have been held to unfair standards.

Weld cited one example where a group of legislators “toured the facilities of a commercial enterprise over which their committee had jurisdiction” and each received expenses plus a $2,000 fee. The incident prompted him to ask for an indictment form to move against the 12 unidentified members involved.

Congress Exempted Itself

To his surprise, Weld discovered “that in fact only members of the executive branch and the independent agencies” were prohibited from supplementing their salaries with fees and honorariums for job-related activities.

“Thus, actions that would be illegal if committed by someone in the executive branch were perfectly all right if committed by a member of Congress,” Weld said. “Congress has exempted itself from coverage of this law.”

Members of Congress also “may act on matters in which they have a personal financial interest (and) there are no restrictions on lobbying by former members of Congress,” he noted.

“For all the talk about ethics in this city, or the lack thereof, we must face the fact that an inequality of treatment prevails in Washington, D.C.,” Weld said. “Congressmen who expect the public to believe that large monetary donations do not affect their votes or their views . . . underestimate the intelligence of the American people.”

He added, “My opinion is that something must be done to curb the potentially corrupting influence of these ‘fees’ and ‘honoraria’ within the legislative branch.” He suggested raising congressional salaries to as much as $175,000 a year in exchange for a ban.