Some Lawmakers Will Now Accept Raise : House of Representatives: Orange County congressmen have divergent views on what should be done with pay hike.

When the House of Representatives voted itself a pay raise of nearly 40% last month, four of Orange County’s five congressmen stood shoulder to shoulder in staunch opposition.

But now that the pay package is history, the four fiscal conservatives have divergent views on the ethics of pocketing their higher pay.

“You shouldn’t be able to have it both ways,” declared Rep. William E. Dannemeyer (R-Fullerton), who said he will donate to charity the first part of the pay package, a 7.9% cost-of-living increase that takes effect in February.

Dannemeyer added, however, that if he is reelected in 1990, he would have no qualms about accepting the second part of the package, a hefty 25% basic salary hike plus another cost-of-living increase expected to be about 3%. Both are to take effect Jan. 1, 1991.

Together, the raises will push pay in the House to about $124,300 a year from the current $89,500. The legislation also will bar congressmen from accepting fees for speaking engagements, beginning in 1991, and institute other reforms.

“There is an intervening election in November of 1990,” Dannemeyer said in an interview last week. “If the people of the district elect me, then it’s a new two-year term, and the compensation that would be effective, I would take it.”

Freshman Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Lomita), whose district includes northwestern Orange County, has a different plan.

“I’m definitely going to take the cost-of-living. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that at all,” he said.

However, Rohrabacher said he still is mulling over what to do about the more substantial pay hike in 1991, should he be elected to a second term.

“I’m really thinking about what is appropriate, considering that I voted against the pay raise,” Rohrabacher said. “I may take it and donate a certain percentage to charity, or I may not take it at all.”

Rep. C. Christopher Cox (R-Newport Beach), who issued a press release denouncing the pay raise on the day it was approved, said he will accept the money.

“My opposition to the pay raise has absolutely nothing to do with how much, in the abstract, the position ‘member of Congress’ is worth,” said Cox, a graduate of Harvard Law School and a former assistant White House counsel.

“It’s a little bit like saying, ‘How much is the position of CEO (chief executive officer) of this company worth?’ It depends on performance.”

Congress as an institution turned in a particularly bad performance this year, Cox said, and so Congress as a whole does not deserve a raise.

“I was not given the opportunity to vote a pay raise for deserving members. I was given the opportunity to vote a raise for all members, the majority of whom are not deserving,” he said.

That does not mean, Cox said, that “I think I deserve a pay raise and so I’m going to take it. . . .

“If it’s a question of what I deserve, perhaps I should be more sensitive and say that the three times multiple . . . I would be making in the real world is a better measure of my marketplace value.

“But I think that when one is engaged in public service, all bets are off. It’s appropriate that we keep in mind that this is public service and our bosses (the voters) in many cases make a lot less than we do.”

Rep. Robert K. Dornan (R-Garden Grove) said he will follow past practice and donate the initial 7.9% raise to charity. A similar vow last year brought Dornan criticism when he did not immediately begin handing over the raise to charity, but instead placed it in an escrow account.

Despite the controversy, Dornan said that is how he will handle it again.

“The only reason it got to be a sore point was that I wanted to give it in one allocation,” he said. “When you take the pay raise, and spread it out monthly, it’s not all that big.”

And what about the 25% pay raise in 1991, if he is reelected?

“I’ll cross that bridge when I come to it,” Dornan said. “If you get (a political opponent) coming to you in a hard challenge saying, ‘I’m not going to take that pay raise,’ then you may have to respond in an election. . . . I want to keep my options open on this.”

Unlike Dannemeyer, Dornan lists no income other than his congressional salary on financial disclosure forms. Dannemeyer has substantial investments in real estate and receives annual income of between $80,000 and $200,000 on top of his congressional pay, his most recent disclosure form states.

A devout Lutheran, Dannemeyer also said he and his wife tithe their income, meaning they donate 10% a year to charity.

Both Dornan and Dannemeyer, strident critics of the homosexual activist movement, said that among the charities to which they will give are several involved in AIDS-related work.

Personal financial information provided by Cox and Rohrabacher on disclosure forms filed last spring was limited because both are serving their first year in Congress.

Rep. Ron Packard (R-Carlsbad), whose district includes southern Orange County, was the only Orange County lawmaker to vote in favor of the pay and ethics package.

At the time, Packard said he was committed to key provisions in the ethics reform section of the bill. One would close a loophole that allows representatives elected before 1980 to convert campaign funds to their personal use when they retire.

A spokesman said Packard, who lists investment income of between $22,500 and $70,000 on his financial disclosure form, intends to accept the raise.