Lawmakers Warn Against Term Limits : Government: House Democrats say ballot measure would destroy state’s clout in Congress as seniority passes to states that don’t impose rule.

California’s Democratic House members, many of whom have risen to positions of power, on Thursday assailed the new state ballot measure to limit their terms, charging that it would destroy the state’s clout in Congress.

“It’s ironic that this comes when California is at its lowest point economically in many decades and when it is critical that we get our fair share of the federal budget,” said Rep. Vic Fazio (D-West Sacramento), a House leader who could become Speaker some day.

“It doesn’t make sense. . . ,” agreed Rep. Leon E. Panetta (D-Monterey), one of at least 15 Californians destined to head House committees or subcommittees next year. “Suddenly, we’d lose the ability to have influence in key committees in Congress while we’d let other states run the show.”

A group set up by former Los Angeles County Supervisor Pete Schabarum has qualified a term-limit initiative for the November ballot. If it passes and survives a certain constitutional challenge, California’s 52 House members and two senators would be forced out sometime after 1998.

Under the measure, House members would be barred from the ballot if they had served six years or more in the previous 11 years. U.S. senators would be barred if they had served for 12 years or more in the previous 17. No California representatives, even Republicans who support national term limits, said they thought such state-imposed limits would be ruled constitutional.

Rep. George Miller (D-Martinez), chairman of the House Interior Committee--which has sway over California’s vast federal lands and water projects--declared that even if limits are legal, voters might be taking the easy way out.

“It cheapens democracy,” he said. “Democracy is hard work. We watch people stare down tanks in Tian An Men Square or knock down the Berlin Wall. People ought to get off their ass every two or four years and go vote” rather than have officials automatically rotated out of office.

Lawmakers from other states gleefully rubbed their hands at the prospect of diminished California seniority and chairmanships in the House and Senate.

“We’d rejoice to see them pass that in California because it would give us relatively more power,” said Rep. Butler Derrick (D-S.C.). “California has some of the most senior members and others are moving up fast.”

Similarly, Rep. Charles Wilson (D-Tex.) said that it “would be very self-destructive for California to set limits unilaterally. It would just mean that Texas, Mississippi, Georgia and other Southern states would end up with most of the committee chairmanships.”

Rep. William E. Dannemeyer (R-Fullerton), who is leaving Congress at the end of this term after his loss in this month’s senatorial primary, said he hopes to see term limits approved for every state in a constitutional amendment.

“This will enable us to move away from pork barreling and focus on ideological divisions on issues,” he said.

Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Redlands), third-ranking GOP House leader, is treating the term-limits issue gingerly. Since California voters already have approved limits for state legislators, he said, he sees no need to take a position on federal limits.

But he said that he is concerned that such limits would have “a dramatic impact on the quality and mix of the (state’s congressional) delegation.”

Miller and other Democrats were unequivocally opposed to the initiative.

“The state that suffers from earthquakes, fires, storms and droughts should not give up seniority and levers of power,” he said. “If California was a paradise, we’d never need anything and limits would make some sense. But this is silly and naive by any political measurement.”