Wright Plans Vote on Lesser Pay Increase : Proposes 30% Raise; Polls Show Most in House Fault 50% Hike

House Speaker Jim Wright (D-Tex.) will announce today that he has scheduled a vote for next Thursday on a proposal to scale back the pending pay increase for members of Congress to 30% and combine it with a ban on speaking fees, sources said Wednesday.

The vote will take place one day after a 50% pay increase, which former President Ronald Reagan proposed last month, takes effect unless Congress rejects it before then. Wright has blocked a vote on the raise.

May Urge Other Cuts

Federal judges and several thousand top executive branch officials will also receive substantial raises Wednesday, and sources said that Wright is likely to propose reducing the raises of the executive branch officials as well. The Constitution prohibits Congress from reducing judicial salaries.

Knowledgeable sources predict that neither the House nor the Senate will approve Wright’s proposal to scale back Congress’ pay raise to 30%, but recent polls have shown that most House members oppose the full 50% increase.

Wright decided on the 30% proposal in response to many complaints from members of both parties about his decision not to put the 50% proposal to a vote. He recently has been polling members of Congress to determine whether they want to vote on the issue before the 50% hike takes effect.

Michel Backs 25%

Sources said that Wright’s latest strategy does not have the support of House Minority Leader Robert H. Michel (R-Ill.), who has urged the Speaker to propose an increase of no more than 25%.

The 50% increase would raise the salary of members of Congress to $135,000 from $89,500. A 30% increase would yield a salary of about $116,000 and would precisely compensate House members for the loss of honorariums, which, under current rules, may total no more than 30% of their salaries.

However, senators may receive speaking fees and other honorariums equal to 40% of their pay, and Wright’s 30% raise could mean a loss of income for them.

Wright’s proposal for a 30% hike would be combined with a package of reforms in addition to the complete ban on honorariums.

Veteran members of Congress no longer would be able to convert their leftover campaign contributions to their personal use when they retire. And members of Congress could no longer earn some forms of outside income, such as lawyers’ fees; and other forms, such as farming profits, would be limited to 50% of their salaries.

Congress Polled

Details of Wright’s plan came to light as a new poll indicated that a majority of House members opposes the 50% increase.

The survey of House members, conducted by consumer advocate Ralph Nader, indicated that 62% of them are opposed. A majority of Senate members is known to oppose the raise as well.

As for members of the California delegation in the House, a Times survey showed 15 opposed to the pay raise, 9 in favor of it, 7 undecided and 14 unavailable for comment.

These surveys pointed up what critics have portrayed as hypocrisy on the part of House members who want to accept the pay hike without casting a vote.

At a hearing of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, Sen. Gordon J. Humphrey (R-N. H.), a congressional gadfly, likened those who want the money without casting a vote to “cockroaches (that) run from a bright light.”

He added: “What a perfect system for evading accountability. We get the dough and leave no footprints.”

Likewise, Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N. C.) said the pay raise is creating a bad image for members of Congress. “The people are saying the Congress is a bunch of crooks,” he said.

The Nader survey--as well as a similar poll conducted by the Associated Press showing that 88% of House members want to vote on the pay issue--were particularly controversial in light of the announcement by Wright Tuesday that he was privately polling members to determine whether they want an opportunity to reject the raise.

Mark Johnson, a spokesman for Wright, said that the Speaker’s announcement was intended “to dispel the notion” that not voting on the pay raise by Wednesday “is a one-man decision.”

In the Senate, California’s two senators--Democrat Alan Cranston and Republican Pete Wilson--have indicated that they intend to vote against the 50% pay raise, but neither senator has yet decided whether he will accept the money if it becomes law.

Cranston has accepted previous pay hikes; Wilson gave the most recent $12,500 to charity.

Bill Livingston, a spokesman for Wilson, said that, although the senator opposes the raise on grounds that it would add to the federal budget deficit, he has not decided whether he will turn down the entire pay raise if the Senate votes also to ban honorariums.

Wilson accepted more than $30,000 in honorariums in 1987, the last year for which reports are available.

Cranston’s spokesman, Murray Flander, described the issue of whether the senator will accept the money as “hypothetical.”

In the House, the survey by Nader, who is an outspoken opponent of the pay increase, showed that 270 House members would vote against the pay increase, 47 would vote in favor of it, 41 are undecided and 75 did not respond. There are two vacancies.

Nader Poll Figures

Nader’s poll on the California delegation showed 16 members opposed, 9 in favor, 14 undecided and 6 unavailable. Nader’s totals and those of The Times differed somewhat based on shifts in the undecided ranks and differences in those who could be reached, but both tallies put the largest number of members in the opposed category.

In the Times survey, the 15 representatives opposing the pay raise are Glenn M. Anderson (D-San Pedro), George E. Brown Jr. (D-Colton), Tom Campbell (R-Palo Alto), C. Christopher Cox (R-Newport Beach), William E. Dannemeyer (R-Fullerton), Robert K. Dornan (R-Garden Grove), David Dreier (R-La Verne), Elton Gallegly (R-Simi Valley), Wally Herger (R-Yuba City), Duncan L. Hunter (R-Coronado), Bill Lowery (R-San Diego), Carlos J. Moorhead (R-Glendale), Ron Packard (R-Carlsbad), Dana Rohrabacher (R-Lomita) and Norman D. Shumway (R-Stockton).

The nine favoring it are Jim Bates (D-San Diego), Tony Coelho (D-Merced), Ronald V. Dellums (D-Berkeley), Vic Fazio (D-Sacramento), Robert T. Matsui (D-Sacramento), George Miller (D-Martinez), Edward R. Roybal (D-Los Angeles), Pete Stark (D-Oakland) and Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles).

Representatives saying that they are undecided are Augustus F. Hawkins (D-Los Angeles), Richard H. Lehman (D-Sanger), Mel Levine (D-Santa Monica), Norman Y. Mineta (D-San Jose), Leon E. Panetta (D-Monterey), Charles Pashayan Jr. (R-Fresno) and William M. Thomas (R-Bakersfield).

Representatives unavailable were Anthony C. Beilenson (D-Los Angeles), Howard L. Berman (D-Panorama City), Douglas H. Bosco (D-Occidental), Barbara Boxer (D-Greenbrae), Julian C. Dixon (D-Los Angeles), Mervin M. Dymally (D-Compton), Don Edwards (D-San Jose), Robert J. Lagomarsino (R-Ojai), Tom Lantos (R-San Mateo), Jerry Lewis (R-Redlands), Matthew G. Martinez (D-Monterey Park), Al McCandless (R-Bermuda Dunes), Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) and Esteban E. Torres (D-La Puente).