Senate OKs Ban on Outside Speaking Fees : Ethics: Lawmakers seeking to end honorariums say they are special interest subsidies that erode public confidence in democracy.

Reflecting a growing sensitivity over ethics, senators voted Wednesday in favor of barring the acceptance of outside speaking fees, or honorariums.

“The practice of accepting honoraria is fundamental to the continuing erosion of public trust in this representative democracy,” Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) said shortly before a 77-23 vote to ban the fees effective Jan. 1.

“It is a deceitful exercise that hides back-door special interest subsidies which go directly into a senator’s pocket,” he added.

For the time being, the proposed ban may be more symbolic than real, however, because it is attached as an amendment to a bitterly fought campaign finance bill whose future is in doubt.

Nevertheless, Senate leaders said that an honorarium ban was inevitable. They indicated that they would try to couple the ban with a pay raise after the congressional elections in November. That would bring the Senate in line with a prohibition that will take effect Jan. 1 for the House and the executive branch.

Senators accepted $2.7 million in honorariums last year, keeping $2 million of it as a supplement their $89,500 salaries, while donating the rest to charity.

House members decided last November to stop accepting honorariums Jan. 1, 1991, in exchange for two hefty pay raises--7.9% this year and 25% next year, boosting representatives’ salaries to $120,750.

But senators, fearful of voter reaction against big pay increases, chose a different course at that time. They elected to phase out their honorariums over several years as a 10% pay raise and cost-of-living adjustments took effect. Thus, senators’ salaries are due to increase to about $100,000 on Jan. 1, while their honorarium limit drops to about $25,000.

However, pressure to accelerate a total ban on senators’ honorariums steadily mounted over the last several months as the Senate Ethics Committee investigated the conduct of seven senators, and outside groups criticized the influence of money in politics.

Last week, the Senate formally denounced Minnesota Republican Dave Durenberger for, among other things, cheating on honorarium limits. On that charge, he was ordered to make restitution of $95,000 plus interest.

Although the Senate voted Wednesday to adopt the honorarium ban proposed by Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), the issue stirred up a multitude of frustrations. As a result, the Senate immediately adopted, 51 to 49, a Draconian amendment that was widely viewed as merely mischievous and unlikely to become law.

That amendment, offered by Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.), called for limiting senators’ outside income--including dividends, interest, rents and capital gains--to 15% of their official salary.

Voting against it were most of the Senate’s two dozen millionaires, including John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), John Heinz (R-Pa.), Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), John C. Danforth (R-Mo.), Claiborne Pell (D-R.I.), Alan Cranston (D-Calif.) and Pete Wilson (R-Calif.).

“Some senators voted for the amendment on outside income because they don’t like their honoraria being taken away and they’re worried they would be earning less than House members,” explained a senator who requested anonymity. “Others were mad at the wealthy senators who don’t understand why the rest of us need a pay raise. And others just wanted to add something that would help sink” the campaign finance bill, whose sweeping provisions have sparked fierce partisan wrangling.

The amendment to ban honorariums was supported by 53 Democrats and 24 Republicans, including Cranston and Wilson. It was opposed by 2 Democrats and 21 Republicans.