O.C. Delegation Has Prop. 164 Reservations : Government: The measure’s applicability only to California is called a flaw. All 5 congressmen back ‘reasonable’ term limits.

When Rep. Christopher Cox joined more than 50 of his Capitol Hill colleagues in signing an oath to support any plan to limit congressional terms, the Newport Beach Republican penciled in one extra word on his official pledge.

The caveat, Cox said, was that he would support any reasonable term-limit proposal.

For Orange County’s five incumbent congressmen, all of whom say they support some type of restriction on the length of congressional service, the term reasonable has become a term of art, especially as it applies to California Proposition 164, the state term-limit initiative.

Rep. Ron Packard (R-Oceanside), who has served in the House since 1983, says he supports a uniform, national term limit on all members of Congress, but opposes Proposition 164 because it would apply only to California lawmakers.

“California would be left at the mercy of the senior members of Congress from other states,” Packard says. In addition, he argues that state-imposed limits on federal terms of office are likely to be ruled unconstitutional by the courts. Packard represents South County.

Reps. Cox and Dana Rohrabacher (R-Huntington Beach) voice reservations about the California term-limit initiative but say they support it, even if reluctantly. That’s also the position of retiring Rep. William E. Dannemeyer (R-Fullerton), who was defeated in his bid for the U.S. Senate in the June Republican primary. Dannemeyer has served in the House for 14 years.

“In this business, the ideal is seldom available,” Dannemeyer says.

More confused is Rep. Robert K. Dornan (R-Garden Grove), who has repeatedly introduced national term-limit proposals in Congress since 1978. A spokesman for the state group backing Proposition 164 said Dornan is one of five California representatives who have signed a statement supporting the initiative. (Cox and Rohrabacher also are on the list.)

But in an interview last week, Dornan said, “I’m still looking at it. What I do with something like that is look at it cold turkey in the (voting) booth, then I read the words carefully and make up my mind.” Later he added, “I’ll probably vote for it.”

The state term-limit initiative, which is expected to win overwhelming approval at the polls on Tuesday, would restrict U.S. senators from California to 12 years of consecutive service, and House members to six. That is, senators could serve two six-year terms, and House members would be allowed three two-year terms.

California, which approved term limits on state legislators two years ago, is one of 14 states considering congressional term limit proposals this year. Colorado already has enacted congressional term limits. That law has not yet been challenged in court.

Supporters of Proposition 164 argue that passing state initiatives is the only way to end the permanent government of professional politicians in Washington. “To get Congress to reform itself is literally impossible,” said Bill Chapman, Southern California director of Citizens for Term Limits, the principal proponent of Proposition 164. The initiative also is supported by U.S. Term Limits, the Washington-based organization that is circulating the congressional pledge cards.

The subject of term limits is extremely sensitive, especially for incumbents.

Packard, for example, was one of several Republicans approached in September by Rep. Julian C. Dixon (D-Los Angeles), who is leading congressional opposition to the California initiative. Business, labor and law enforcement groups also oppose the measure.

Dixon and his supporters argue that Californians would be shooting themselves in the foot by restricting the terms of their representatives while members of Congress from other states would be free to accumulate seniority and power.

“I met with the (Dixon group) a couple of times, and determined . . . I just didn’t want to get out in front on the issue,” Packard said. He said his anti-164 position could be misinterpreted because “I do support (national) term limitations.”

One member of Congress, who asked not to be identified, said Packard and other Republicans were threatened with political reprisals by supporters of Proposition 164 if they actively opposed the initiative.

Packard’s chief of staff, David C. Coggin, said: “We heard third-hand that they might try to do something like that, that they would target us in some way. We didn’t know what they were going to do.” But Coggin said the rumor did not play a role in Packard’s decision against joining Dixon’s effort.

Asked about reprisals against Proposition 164 opponents, Dixon said he had not seen any campaign literature raising that issue, “but I do know that members were sensitive to that sort of thing.”

Even Orange County congressmen who say they are planning to vote for the measure maintain that it is flawed.

In addition to applying only to Californians, said Rohrabacher, Proposition 164 would not afford House members enough time to make a mark in Congress, either for their district or their state.

“I think three terms is not enough, because it takes at least two years for someone to learn the congressional system,” said the Huntington Beach Republican, who is seeking his third term in the House. “After two more years, you’ve made them a lame duck. . . . They’re only going to have a very short, effective life in Congress.”

All five Orange County congressmen said they would prefer a six-term limit on House members, and a two-term limit on senators, for a total of 12 years of consecutive service.

“One of the ironies of Proposition 164 is that it treats the Senate as a less serious problem than the House,” said Cox, who also is seeking his third term. “In real life, the extraordinarily long terms are in the Senate. . . . And the Senate, because of the enhanced power of individual members, is the source of greater abuse.”

Despite their reservations, the congressmen who support Proposition 164 say one of its virtues is that it may help achieve nationwide term limits.

“If we leave this issue of term limits to the House and the Senate, (the limits) will never come about,” Dannemeyer said. “It is not in the nature of political operatives to nobly limit their time at the public trough.”

If states pass term limits, and they are ruled unconstitutional, Dannemeyer predicted that state legislatures would petition Congress to hold a constitutional convention to consider a term-limit amendment. That prospect in itself, Dannemeyer said, might be enough to force Congress to act.