Early defeat of term limits is predicted

Jim Abrams

Monday, Nov. 25, 1996 | 11:59 a.m.

WASHINGTON -- A sure bet for the 105th Congress convening in January is that an early item of business will be a constitutional amendment to limit its members' terms.

Another virtual certainty is that, once again, the measure will not pass.

House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., has pledged to make term limits, an unfulfilled GOP "Contract With America" promise, the first substantive issue before the House.

Even proponents acknowledge they are not even close in the House, let alone the more resistant Senate, to the two-thirds majority necessary to approve a constitutional amendment. Even if could pass congressional muster, it still would require ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures.

"I hope to see us not lose ground," said Cleta Mitchell of Americans Back in Charge, a pro-term limits lobbying group.

"We do have a long way to go," said Jonathan Ferry of U.S. Term Limits, another advocacy group. "It may take another (election) cycle."

The House favored the amendment, 227-204, in March 1995, more than 60 votes short of the two-thirds majority. The Senate had no definitive vote in the last session but did defeat, 49-45, a nonbinding resolution putting senators on record as favoring term limits.

Congress has become the front line of the term-limits battle since the Supreme Court, with a 5-4 decision in 1995, nullified actions by 23 states to limit terms of their members in Congress. The court said that would require a constitutional amendment.

In a countermove this year, advocates put measures on ballots in 14 states to require candidates to support limiting congressional terms. The initiatives would punish winners who did not follow through with a "scarlet letter" on the ballot when they ran for re-election -- a line saying they disregarded their promise.

The propositions passed in nine states, but some already are being challenged in court.

Opponents of term limits include such powerful Republicans as Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois, the House Judiciary Committee chairman, and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi. They argue that sufficient turnover already exists to ensure survival of the citizen lawmaker, whose first duty is to serve the folks back home.

In the just-ending 104th Congress, 183 House members -- 42 percent of the total -- were in either their first or second terms.

"I don't think it's an issue," said Victor Kamber, a Democratic consultant who has written a book critical of term limits. "It died off in 1994." That was an election year when support for term limits was high among voters angry over the House post office and banking scandals.

But limits supporter Rep. Bob Inglis, R-S.C., said the 1994 election, in which 94 percent of House incumbents who ran for re-election won and just one Senate incumbent was defeated, "is a great argument for term limits." Those returning in January include 93-year-old Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., who has served for 42 years, and 87-year-old Rep. Sid Yates, D-Ill., first elected in 1948.

Incumbency "is still the biggest perk" in Congress, said Sen. John Ashcroft, R-Mo., and term limitation "is the first campaign reform that ought to be embraced."

Republicans always have led the term-limits fight, but lobbyist Mitchell said she hopes to attract more Democrats as they head for long-term minority status. "Democrats always viewed this as a Republican plot to take over Congress," she said. "Well, they've already done that. I'm hoping Democrats will see an opportunity here."

Term-limit groups remain divided between those led by U.S. Term Limits, who want to limit House members to three two-year terms, and those, including Mitchell, who say a 12-year limit for the House has a better chance of enactment. The groups agree that two six-year terms are enough for senators.

The three term-six term dispute muddled debate in the House last year, and supporters say they want to present a more unified front in 1997. "I'd love to see six years," said Inglis, main sponsor in 1995 of that formula, "but 12 years would be very good."