Democrats Back Raises but Republicans Aren’t So Sure : Congress: The proposal would phase in a 33% salary increase from $89,500 to more than $120,000 while restricting outside congressional income.

Faced with an impending vote on a new congressional plan to raise lawmakers’ pay by 33% and, at the same time, overhaul ethics rules, Rep. Carlos Moorhead (R-Glendale) finds himself in an uncomfortable spot.

He can support the salary boost and raise the ire of legions of conservative constituents. Or he can vote against the measure and risk being painted as an opponent of ethics reforms--including a provision that would prohibit him from converting more than $600,000 in campaign funds to personal use after leaving office.

“I will make a determination as we go along,” Moorhead said Tuesday. “I’ve never voted for a pay raise.”

Moorhead’s indecision on this highly sensitive issue was not unique among some of the San Fernando Valley area’s conservative lawmakers who strongly opposed a previous pay increase bill last January.

Meanwhile, the Valley area’s three liberal Democrats--Reps. Anthony C. Beilenson of Tarzana, Howard L. Berman of Panorama City and Henry A. Waxman of Los Angeles--voiced support for the plan. They also voted for the unsuccessful original pay hike proposal earlier this year.

Among the conservatives, Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-Simi Valley), who prides himself on never having voted for a pay raise as a city councilman, mayor or congressman, also said he was undecided. He said he was torn between a justifiable pay boost and desirable changes in House rules on the one hand and his longstanding opposition to voting himself a pay increase on the other.

Rep. William M. Thomas (R-Bakersfield), whose district includes the northern Antelope Valley, said he would not speculate on a plan that has not yet been formally introduced and was subject to change.

Only conservative Republican Robert J. Lagomarsino of Ventura flatly reiterated his opposition to a pay boost. But he called the revised plan superior to its predecessor because the increase is more modest and is coupled with a ban on much-criticized speaking fees and other ethics changes.

The measure would also repeal a provision in the current rules that permits House members elected before 1980 to keep their campaign funds for personal use after leaving Congress.

Moorhead, who was first elected in 1972 and has a $616,000 campaign arsenal, says that he does not intend to keep any of the money upon retirement. However, he said, he’d like to see the provision repealed because he is annoyed by speculation about his plans for the money.

The pay raise and ethics proposal are the result of months of work by a bipartisan House panel and has been endorsed in principle by leaders of both parties and the White House. A vote on it is scheduled in the House for Thursday.

The plan would phase in a 33% salary increase from $89,500 to more than $120,000 over the next 14 months while restricting outside congressional income. This compares to a 51% raise--pushing members’ pay to $135,000--that former President Reagan proposed and the House and Senate defeated last January.

The intense public opposition that helped derail the earlier measure has not materialized yet, according to the lawmakers’ offices in their home districts. Some aides said, however, that the coalition of talk show hosts that helped defeat the previous bill by stoking public opposition was just beginning to swing into action.

“The response, at this point, is far less intense than it was in January,” said John Frith, spokesman for Gallegly. “But the sentiment is predictably against it.”

Valley Democrats have maintained that the Congress needs a raise to keep up with inflation and to attract and retain the best possible representatives.

They support the ethics reforms, including a ban on controversial fees that lawmakers receive from special-interest groups for speaking, public appearances and writings. The plan would also limit all outside income to 15% of members’ salaries and establish a $200 annual limit on gifts from anyone other than a family member.

“The responsibilities and obligations of the office justify the pay increase,” Berman said. “Moreover, it is much healthier for the pay to come directly through salary than through the outside income.”

Beilenson, who refuses to accept honorariums, has been particularly critical of what he maintains is the corrupting effect of the special-interest speaking fees.

Lagomarsino, who said he too favors the honorarium ban, nevertheless maintained, “I don’t think Congress deserves a pay raise. . . .

“Here it is the end of November almost and we don’t even have a budget yet. Apparently, we’re going to go home without passing all 13 appropriations bills, we’re not going to meet the Gramm-Rudman goals, we don’t have a Clean Air Act.”

In addition, he said he opposed Congress giving itself part of the raise, an 8% cost-of-living adjustment, during the current session. He pledged to donate that portion of the raise to charity if the plan is passed.